Comments

- Harper: Parliament Has Confidence in Me . . . Honest

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:24:00 +0000

Posted: 3/11/2010 11:17:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Get down to basics, Liberals, Gordon Gibson, 11 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/get-down-to-basics-liberals/article1496668/ Tab 3

Whether a vote is a "confidence" vote should be determined by Parliament. Logically this makes sense. It is Parliament that is deciding whether they have Confidence, certainly it is up to Parliament to say when. With a majority government there is no difference. However, as we have seen, with Harper and the Con's using it to hamstring Parliament it is possible to be abused when there is a minority government. It is not simply that there is a minority government but one lead by someone, Harper, who has spent their public life dedicated to tearing federation asunder and Canada, as a nation, be damned. This is compounded by Harper and the Con's in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway, everyone else is an enemy, no tolerance to compromise, extremist approach.

If the government brings a vote that is defeated. What the result be. Deadlock and everything grind to a halt? Perhaps, but then Parliament may put forward ways to resolve this impasse or recommend an election.

More likely, the government would approach the Opposition Parties for compromise. They may even decide to get consensus before bring the vote. With a minority this is exactly what should be happening, but with Harper and the Con's it is not. Parliament deciding which of their votes is a Confidence vote would certainly be a vast improvement on what we have now.

Similarly for Prorogation and dissolving Parliament. It is Parliament that is being suspended or dissolved. Why is it that it is the Prime Minister, who holds office at the Will of Parliament that decides this. With a majority government or with a minority that has the best interest of Canada as a nation at heart, this issue doesn't surface. But with the likes of Harper and the Con's it does.

Perhaps someone could explain how it is that these power lie in the hands of the Prime Minster anyway.

For my suggestions on Senate refer see my Blog, 22 Feb.'10,
cicblog.com/comments.html

Lloyd MacILquham

***
18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.

. . .

This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.

This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.

A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.

***

- Harper and the Con's Hypocrites, You Say

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:09:00 +0000

No Posts Allowed: Toronto Star
Former Harper aide says Jaffer should apologize, Andrew Wallace, 10 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/777889--former-
harper-aide-says-jaffer-should-apologize?bn=1

"Judges rarely overrule sentence recommendations in plea bargains, and certainly cannot reverse decisions made on charges that are never brought before them, Toews notes"
It seems to me that the charges were in front of the Judge in this case, in which case he would have to agree to having them 'dropped', wouldn't he - Law Professor Stuart seems to think so.

"Queen’s law professor Donald Stuart said when serious criminal charges like these were withdrawn then a detailed explanation should have been given in the courtroom . . ."
That's what I though, perhaps Toews could enlighten us why it is otherwise.

Vic Toews, hyper-partizan whose M.O. consists, apparently, of mud slinging with little concern for what is actually true compared to a law professor, you decide.

"[Toews] goes on to launch a bitter, personal attack on a Winnipeg Free Press reporter." - case in point. And, how about the Cotler 10%-er.

“I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in the federal government,” Stuart said.
Looks that way to me, what does the rest of Canada think.

"Since Jaffer is a public figure, a better explanation of what happened is probably a good idea, Bentley admitted."
You got that right. Given the public status of Jaffer one might think they would do it just to cover their backsides.

"'I don’t think that it’s any of my business,' said Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy."
Wrong, it's everyone's business. Also, Duffy's reporter instincts seem to have waned somewhat.

One would think that Jaffer would want the details released in order to try to put it all to rest otherwise this will likely haunt him in any future public life activity. For politicians the taint of guilt in the minds of the people is sufficient.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, How Much More - Call An Inquiry

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:55:00 +0000

Submitted: 8:40am, PST, 10 Mar.'10 CBC News
Afghan detainee torture risk raised in 2005: diplomat, March 10, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/09/detainee-afghan-diplomat.html Tab 50

Oh, yah, but did Eillen Olexiuk give any 'credible examples of actual torture' (thanks Harper, Mackay, Hawn)

It is my understanding that Stephen Harper and the Con's upped Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to an active combat role and did it almost immediately after getting into power in Jan.'06. One would think that the Media would, as Stephen Harper himself has put it, shed light on this dark corner.

It is statements like that of Eillen Olexiuk that make a public Judicial Inquiry with full powers, including that of subpoena, that much more important.

Her statements raise a lot of questions. For example, why is she making them now. Why was she not call to testify at the Parliamentary Committee hearings. Surely it was not because she was shy to reveal what she has to say.

The timing of her statement to me should be investigated. It is occurring just as things start to really heat up for Harper and the Con - how convenient for Harper and the Con's that it is actually not Harper but the Liberals that are at fault.

Apparently, Harper is spending all this energy and political risk covering up, not to protect himself and his Con government, but to protect the previous Liberal government - wow, how altruistic, I may have to re-assess my impression of Harper and the Cons.

How many other people are poised to make revelations in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up.

One would think that if Harper thought (and keep in mind that he and his inner circle are the only ones right now that have all the information) that the Liberal Party were in any way at fault that he would be eager to call a full Public Inquiry. After all it was Paul Martin calling one for the Sponsorship Scandal that allowed Harper into power in the first place.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, 'Tough on Con's' Agenda ???

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:58:00 +0000

Posted: 3/10/2010 10:37:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories bristle when asked to explain Rahim Jaffer's 'slap on the wrist', Jane Taber , 9 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-bristle-when-asked-to-explain-rahim-jaffers-slap-on-the-wrist/article1495270/ Tab 86

Stephen Harper, Rob Nicholson, Vic Toews, Stockwell Day, John Baird and Jim Flaherty, and all the Con's may have a 'Tough on Crime" policy.

But, apparently it is not a "Tough on Con's" policy.

Judges in Canada are appointed for life. The reason is to detach themselves politically and establish and maintain independence. The Canadian judicial system differs from the US in this respect (Senators are appointed for life on the same theory). Our Judiciary has a long tradition of independence.

This should be distinguished from the appointment of people to the bench that have a conservative value system. Everyone has a particular value system which may be conservative, liberal or otherwise. Judges are expected to rely on their experience and value system in making their judgments - hence 'judgment'. However, the value system ought to be in line with the general values of our society. This is most likely to occur when it is a majority government of a moderate nature, that has been in power for a number of years and has the good of all Canadians at heart, as opposed to promoting a particular ideology. The more extreme the ideology of the government, the smaller and more distinct the sector of the population they represent and the more partizan the appointments the less likely these value systems correspond with the general values of the society but that of a small sector. This of course, is the danger of someone like Harper and the Con's wielding executive powers.

I find it very difficult to believe that the judge in this case would accept a plea bargain (a judge does not have to accept a plea bargain) and hand down a sentence in this case based on political considerations - in this case it appear that once the plea bargain is accepted the sentence is automatic, perhaps someone could clarify this.

On the other hand, Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville makes an important and valid point.

Harper, Nicholson and the Con's appear very hypocritical about this. How many times in the past few years have we all heard the Con's accusing our judges of not being tough enough. One would expect that they should be up and arms about the treatment of Jaffer and demand that Jaffer allow the details released. The optics are, of course, because of his political connections to the Con party.

Perhaps someone could go over all "Tough on crime" rhetoric, talking points, policy statements and proposed legislation that Harper and the Con's have espoused up till now and apply it to the Jaffer case. Let me know what the result is.

Also, I believe strongly in the privacy of individual citizens and I am a strong believer in plea-bargains.
But one would think that Jaffer would want the details released in order to try to put it all to rest otherwise this will likely haunt him in any future public life activity. For politicians the taint of guilt in the minds of the people is sufficient.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, It Time To Duck

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:08:00 +0000

Submitted: 8:56am, PST, 9 Mar.'10 The Star

Travers: Expect PM to spark an election, James Travers, The Toronto Star, 9 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/776970--travers-as-the-heat-builds-expect-pm-to-spark-an-election#comments Tab 9

Stephen Harper only needs a reason to call an election and the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up is more than good enough.

The pattern with scandals and cover-ups appears to be similar to a a lump of [censored] hitting the wall.

At first there is a single 'fleck' that hits the target, by itself not of any real consequence. But it can be viewed as a harbinger. Then another, then a few more but more closely grouped in time, until finally the whole thing 'splats'. One could, similarly, likely put an actual time frame on this phenomenon as well, if one were so disposed.

If Harper is going to 'dodge this one' he will have to force an election and soon.

(If Harper would like some advice on calculating the time frames of such phenomenon, tell him to give me a call, not that I have personal experience, of course).

Also,
(excerpt: cicblog.com/comments.html, 8 Jan.'10, on whether Harper will force an election once Parliament resumes.)

But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.

Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.

So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.

Ignatieff ought to be girding his sword, the Liberals 'gathering the Clans'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: If It Looks Like a Cover-Up and Smells Like a Cover-Up

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:01:00 +0000

Posted: 7:13am, PST, 9 Mar.'10
Ottawa anticipated Afghan torture allegations: memo, March 8, 2010, Gil Shochat, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/08/detainees-afghan-government.html Tab 104

David Mulroney testimony at the Parliamentary Committee:

"We did this not because of confirmed instances of real and substantial risk of torture or mistreatment of Canadian-transferred detainees but because it was clear that what we had in place at the time could and should be further reinforced. We needed to be far more engaged in terms of monitoring, training, and providing infrastructure and equipment."
(CBC, 9 Mar.'10)

There appears to be a disconnect in the testimony of David Mulroney. From what I heard on CBC, the Memo, in actuality, had nothing to do with "monitoring, training, and providing infrastructure and equipment." but everything to do with how to handle the Media in response to inquiries about the treatment of Afghan Detainees being transferred (and as I recall this was the Harper government's response until they were forced to abandon this position).

Of course, " because it was clear that what we had in place at the time could and should be further reinforced" begs the question: if there were no " confirmed instances of real and substantial risk" why should it need be further reinforced.

Also, " We did this not because of confirmed instances of real and substantial risk of torture or mistreatment" does not actually deny any such confirmed instances but its wording suggests that non existed.

This is not the only instance of testimony at the Committee that required clarification.

This illustrates another reason why we need a thorough investigation and public Judicial Inquiry with subpoena powers and experienced lawyers.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: Trust Me . . . No Really

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:56:00 +0000

Submitted: 7:46am, PST, 9 Mar.'10 CBC
PM defends spy agency's Afghan role, March 8, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/08/politics-question-period.html Tab 83

All those Canadians that trust Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and the Con government raise your hand.

Harper: "I hope if the honourable member does not trust the government, if he doesn't trust the Canadian Forces, doesn't trust the foreign service or anybody else, maybe he can trust Justice Iacobucci to review the documents," the prime minister told the Commons.

Unfortunately, and it is a sad day for Canada. It is those that hold the reigns of power that are in question and the source of all the mistrust.

It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else.

It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question, and the source of all the mistrust. It is they for whom the issue is whether they have respected Canada's "international obligations at all times." Not anyone else.

Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.

Stephen Harper and the Con's keep suggesting that it was the previous Liberal government's policies that are at fault and they changed them. However, once again the Liberals are demanding the the right thing (morally right that is) be done, despite the possibility that they will be found at fault as well.

Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics.

I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.

However, it would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level and especially the International Criminal Courts in the Hague, to learn the truth.

It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.

The only people that don't want an Inquiry are those that strongly support Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and the Con's.
Mr. Harper, why do Canadians deserve this? because they let you into power?

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stephen Harper - Do the Right (morally, that is) Thing - Call a Full Public Inquiry

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:34:00 +0000

Submitted: 8:26am PST, 8 Mar.'10 CTV

Full public inquiry needed on detainees: Ignatieff, The Canadian Press, Mar. 8, 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100308/detainees_letter_100308/20100308?hub=TopStoriesV2#commentSection

In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that:

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)

Parliament must demand and obtain all the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up in full and pristine order and immediately. This shocking development shows the importance of this.

Given the statements by Prof. Attaran, the possibility that the original documents have been tampered with (or, might I phrase it 're-calibrated and redacted') is now something that must be considered. This I think is something that really only a full investigation and review by a judge and experienced counsel with the full subpoena powers (and other) of a Judicial Inquiry can get to the bottom of.

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Justice Iacobucci and any current or former judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.

But, why in the world Mr. Justice Iacobucci would want to get mixed up in this sorted affair is beyond my understanding.

Just as important, and especially with what University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has just come out with, it is now clear this can only be a delaying tactic by Harper and the Con's. By agreeing to take on the review, Mr. Justice Iacobucci, with all due respect, is dragging himself into this???

Suppose Iacobucci makes not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying, the documents have been destroyed? Harper is justified in hiding them?

We should all demand the truth to this matter and nothing short of a full public Judicial Inquiry can do this.

Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.

Stephen Harper and the Con's keep suggesting that it was the previous Liberal government's policies that are at fault and they changed them. However, once again the Liberals are demanding the the right thing (morally right that is) be done, despite the possibility that they will be found at fault as well.

Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics. Canadians do not deserve this simply because they let you into power.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Canada - Let No Con (Harper) Tear Asunder

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:56:00 +0000

Excerpt Posted: 3/7/2010 12:19:20 PM The Globe and Mail
Retired judge asked to review documents in detainee affair, Gloria Galloway, Mar. 06, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/retired-judge-asked-to-review-documents-in-detainee-affair/article1490854/

Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.

If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

[University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran]
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.

"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)

In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that "If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "

Parliament must demand and obtain these documents in full and pristine order and immediately.

This is a shocking development in the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up shows the importance of this.

Given the statements by Prof. Attaran, the possibility that the documents have been tampered with (or, might I phrase it 're-calibrated and redacted') is now something that must be considered. This I think is only something that could be investigated at a formal Judicial Inquiry and it would certainly explain why Harper and the Con's are doing everything they can to prevent this.

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Justice Iacobucci and any current or former judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.

But, why in the world Mr. Justice Iacobucci would want to get mixed up in this sorted affair is beyond my understanding.

First, this is a power struggle between Harper and Parliament. By agreeing Mr. Justice Iacobucci is, whether directly or indirectly, putting the Judiciary in the middle, thus blurring the separation of the Judicial Branch from the Executive and Legislative Branches. The only result can be a Judiciary tainted with the allegations of bias, no matter how he concludes.

We have all seen how Harper, MacKay, and all the Con's viciously attack anyone that dares to voice an opinion not totally in agreement with their own. So, if Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Parliament, we can expect no less and this, whether anyone likes it or not, will impact on the dignity of the Supreme Court of Canada, as an institution.

In fact, given, Harper and the Con's expressed contempt for our judiciary and in particular Supreme Court and desire to bring it under their thumb, they may take that as an excuse to do just that.

If Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Harper, it will not solve anything since it is non-binding and, in fact put Parliament in a position to insist even harder or concede that Parliament is there at the whim of Harper.

___
It seems to me that the Executive has these power by tradition as opposed to law - i.e. there not being any explicit provisions in our Constitution or Legislation regarding these powers. Tradition refers both to the ability to use the power and the manor in which it is used. Harper hides behind Tradition to wield these powers but scoffs at Parliament when he breaks with Tradition in how he wields them. A prime example of this, aside from refusing to disclose the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents was, of course, Prorogation No.1, where Harper used Prorogation to avoid a non-Confidence vote. Also, to illustrate even further he spend over 2 hours discussing this with the Governor General. Given the amount of time spent, and given the importance to Canada and it Democratic Institutions to the very fact of who runs this country, and given its precedent setting nature (based on Tradition) it is vitally important that we Canadian know exactly what was said during this meeting. Harper's response 'it is traditional that the contents of the meeting not be made public' [sic].

The Supremacy of Parliament means precisely that all powers flows from Parliament and is exercised at the Will of Parliament, including those exercised through tradition. This has nothing to do with the Judiciary. Security measures set out in legislation do not apply to Parliament. The Prime Minister is subjacent to Parliament, if Parliament is restricted in access to these documents, how can it possibly be that the Prime Minister or his government is not. Or another way of saying it is if the Prime Minister and his government have unrestricted access how is it possible that Parliament does not.

With a majority government there is no issue.

And with a minority government this is normally not an issue for a number of reasons.

First, and this is very important, normally, and in fact always in our History as far as I am aware, except with Harper and his Con's, the Prime Minister has the best interest of Canada at heart. Whereas Harper has dedicated much his public life to tearing Canada as a nation asunder.

Also, the Prime Minister governs with the Confidence of Parliament, not simply de jure (no non-confidence vote) but also de facto. Since, de facto non-confidence normally very soon becomes de jure non-confidence normally this distinction does not arise.

In the current situation the only reason there is no non-confidence vote is that Canadians do not want an election. This has nothing to do with confidence but everything to do with the current political constellation consisting of extreme polarization in 4 directions, with Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, whether Harper and the Con's are right (morally that is) or wrong, whether it's for the good of Canada as a nation or not, amounting to approx 33%. In other words, the best that could happen is another minority Harper government and the worst, for Canada that is, Harper somehow manages to get a majority (say a backlash by Canadians for the Opposition voting non-confidence and forcing another election).

Simply put Harper does not have the de facto confidence of Parliament.

This bifurcation is especially coming through after this last Throne speech and Budget (to the point even of Ignatieff in essence saying exactly this - vis.: he does not support the Budget or Throne Speech but he will not force non-confidence through a vote of Confidence because the Canadian people sent him the message in no uncertain terms last Fall that they do not want an election), and, of course, with the refusal by Harper to produce the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents.

One can simply not say that, in fact, Harper and the Con's have the confidence of Parliament, whether there is a Non-Confidence Vote or not.

In the context of power struggle. Parliament is in a moment of weakness due to this polarization. Harper knows this and is taking advantage of it to concentrate unimpeded power in his hands. For Parliament not to assert its authority would mean that Parliament would become impotent, marginalized. Harper's power would become supreme and uncontrolled.

This is not a theoretic consideration. These types of polarizations have occurred in many societies and sometimes simply cannot be resolved, except perhaps revolution or civil war, in which case Harper will have achieved his goal of tearing Canada asunder.
___

Just as important, and especially with what University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has just come out with, it is now clear this can only be a delaying tactic by Harper and the Con's. By agreeing to take on the review, Mr. Justice Iacobucci, with all due respect, is dragging himself into this.

Also, whether evidence has been tampered with is something that really a full investigation and review by a judge and experienced counsel with the full subpoena powers of a Judical Inquiry can get to the bottom of.

Suppose Iacobucci makes not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying, the documents have been destroyed, Harper is justified in hiding them?

We should all demand the truth to this matter.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper- For Whom The Hague Calls

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:47:00 +0000

Submitted: 10:44am PST, 6 Mar.'10, CBC
Canada wanted Afghan prisoners tortured: lawyer, CBC Nwes, 5 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html Tab 219

CBC News:
Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.

If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran,
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.

"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "

***

On 27 Dec.'09 I posted:

It will be an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.

Harper can't Prorogue the Hague. Harper - 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - will have to answer.

I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.

However, it would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada ,on the International level, to learn the truth.

It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.

The only people that don't want an Inquiry are those that strongly support Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the Con's.

How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, "Moral Authority, What Moral Authority"

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:23:00 +0000

Posted: 3/6/2010 12:16:44 PM - The Globe and Mail
Rights fracas draws international rebuke, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press , Mar. 05, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rights-fracas-draws-international-rebuke/article1491566/ Tab 26

Stephen Harper, Lawrence Cannon and the Con's choice “does not have the moral authority to lead an organization like Rights & Democracy”

Don't be so naïve, International Federation for Human Rights, that just shows what you know about Canadian politics.

Harper, Cannon and all the Con's don't have the moral authority to do most of the things they are doing.

The appointment you are referring to is the least of our worries.

Let me explain.

When you read "Harper and the Con's are right wing party, 'right' does not refer to 'morally right', but to the fact that Harper and the Con's base their polices and things they do on a extremist, intolerant ideology as handed down to them by his American overlords.

Harper has indicated that his strategy is to re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions, disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything in dictatorial fashion through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.

Harper and the Con's are dragging us back into a dark age where fear, intolerance and irrationalism reign supreme. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the Dank Ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention, Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Canadian Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stephen Harper - the Pied Piper our children must pay

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:03:00 +0000

Posted: 7:45am 5 Mar.'10 CBC

Budget 2010: A closer look at the numbers, 5 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/04/f-budget-interactive.html Tab 3
Posted: 7:55am, 5 Mar.'10 CBC
What this budget means for you, John McHutchion, CBC News, 4 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/04/f-budget-interactive.html Tab 3

Yesterday, commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I wrote:
"How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives.

I guess the real reason for Proroguing was, indeed, as Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals have been saying - to try to avoid facing up to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal."

Today, my comment on the 'budget' is:

How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and all the Conservatives.

The basic approach here is 'steady as she goes' and we will grow ourselves out of deficit by "restraint in the growth of spending" (to the public service, national defence, foreign aid envelope - to clarify things Peter MacKay has come out and re-assured us that spending for national defence will still be increasing but just not as fast - thanks Peter, you're a saint).

The basic Con doctrine, so adeptly expressed by Tom Flanagan, 'it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be plausible' [sic].

"Steady as she goes", sounds great as if it means everyone will do ok. However, in reality, it means the trend of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer will flourish and in fact this budget promotes it.

"Restraint in the growth of spending" assists in the reduction and 'unwinding' of Canada as a Federalism and is likely meant to be a code phrase to all those die-hard Con's especially those in the West.

Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Cons say no tax hikes but they are raising the Federal payroll taxes 13billion (which will likley kill 200,000 jobs and hurt small business).

And lets face it. If Harper and the Cons remain in power over the next 4 - 5 years, especially if they get a majority, you can be certain transfer payments will be reduced and drastically.

Harper may be playing a 'magic lute' but it is all Canadians, our children and our children's children that must 'Pay the Piper'.

Our government's raison d'être is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection. The Harper strategy appears to be to reduces the help and the protection, then federal government will have no justification and so can be 'dissolved'.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's Recalibration - Con'd Again!

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:49:00 +0000

Posted 2010/03/04 at 10:58 CBC
Throne speech blasted as disappointing 'old stuff' Government's agenda silent on many key points, opposition leaders say, March 3, 2010, CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/03/throne-speech-reaction-politics.html tab 105

How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives.

I guess the real reason for Proroguing was, indeed, as Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals have been saying - to try to avoid facing up to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal.

Harper, show some moral fiber and backbone. Stand up and take responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal. Call a Judicial Inquiry. Paul Martin did with the sponsorship scandal. Why should Canadian have to suffer this hurt and indignity simply because Harper wants to clutch onto power.

On the other hand, perhaps the logic is by simply re-introducing all this old stuff, it is hard for the Opposition to vote against it - shrewd!

It appears this Throne Speech reveals a serious problem amongst the Conservative movement.

Harper want to stay in power and is doing anything and everything to grasp and maintain it. The Conservative movement wants a consolidated coherent and comprehensive policy and agenda that reflects and promotes their extreme right wing ideology.

However, Harper knows that if he were to do this his days in office would be numbered (to approx. 35). This leaves Harper with only one course and we are seeing it.

But, there's more and it's insidious. Harper, in fact, is using Parliament as a smoke screen (in military parlance, 'diversion'), while he implements his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions, disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight. Another of course is through the budget as we will see.

It is not the lyrics "in all thy sons command" in Canada's national anthem that requires urgent and serious consideration at this time in our nation's development.

It's "we stand on guard for thee"

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Harper - It's Re-Cycling Time

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:41:00 +0000

3/3/2010 11:05:44 AM The Globe and Mail
Immigration Minister pulled gay rights from citizenship guide, documents show, The Canadian Press, 3 Mar.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/immigration-minister-pulled-gay-rights-from-citizenship-guide-documents-show/article1486935/ Tab 145

Should anyone really be surprised given that Stephen Harper, Jason Kenny, Peter Van Loan and all the Con's running this great nation of ours are extremist, right wing, ideologies based on intolerance.

As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,”

Likely the reason Kenny had:

"noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005. "

taken out is so when Harper and the Con's reverse these rights and freedoms they would only have to re-do the study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship. They have to look like they are doing something to reduce this record setting deficit.

In this era of environmental consciousness and human rights it simply would not be right (morally, that is) to suggest its 'book burning time' (besides that's such a extremist, right wing, intolerant ideologue, thing to do anyway) - so . . . it book 're-cycling time'.

In fact, it's government re-cycling time, don't you think.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper No Class Act

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:39:00 +0000

Submitted: 7:14am, PST, 2 Mar.'10 CBC
Best Olympics world has ever seen: Harper, March 2, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/amateur/story/2010/03/01/sp-olympics-folo.html#socialcomments

- Harper A Class Con Act

Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives ought to take a lesson from the class act of not only all our athletes who competed at the Olympics, but all the athletes around the world. At least there is something about Canada that we can point on the world stage to dispel the dark shadow cast by Harper and be proud.

If our Hockey Players had played hockey the way Stephen Harper and the Con's do politics, they would all have been given game misconducts and the teams kicked out of the Olympics.

. . . There's a thought, kick Harper and the Con's out of office.

Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?

Now I am sure Harper will tout how he is responsible for Canada's great showing at the Olympics - who knows how, perhaps Harper will explain that his heavy handed abuse of Canadian Democratic Institutions, in-your-face statesmanship and hyper political self-serving served as an inspiration to all.

(By the way, congratulations to all the Olympic competitors for making such a great Games, and to all the Canadians, especially our Hockey Teams - it serves as a great example of what the nations of the world can achieve despite politics).

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper should get a Game Misconduct from Parliament

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0000

3/1/2010 1:21:16 PM The Globe and Mail, Tab 20
(see Article below)

Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?

If our Hockey Players had played hockey the way Stephen Harper and the Con's do politics, they would all have been given game misconducts and the teams kicked out of the Olympics.

. . . There's a thought, kick Harper and the Con's out of office.

*** I couldn't resist the Irony in the following Post by 'Blind Vision'

Tab 11: 'If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".'

Like the rest of your post, you've got it wrong.

It's the Liberals that would get a good laugh and in fact the 2/3rds Canadians that voted against Harper and the Con's that would get a good laugh;

and,

anyone whose 'Vision Is Not Blinded' by self-interest but has the good of all Canadians clearly in sight would be offended.

Blind Vision, if you have such confidence of conviction and truly believed what you are writing, why hide behind a fake name.

Also,

DJay, Tab 13, wrote: "Why of course Harper's slide in the polls was going to stop; as soon as it collided with the collective, thick-skulled portion of the Canadian populace that has always represented its base; - roughly around 30% to 35%."

It is a mistake to think that all the die-hard Harper and the Con Party supporters are " thick-skulled portion of the Canadian populace", besides they are just as entitled to their say as any other. I don't agree that our politics should be based on self-interested, short-sightedness, emotions, irrationality, extreme right wing ideology. But they do have a right to their opinions. It is not their fault Harper is in Power. It the fault of the other 2/3rds of Canadians that stand by and let Harper run things.

Also, I have been posting the die-hard support for Harper and the Con's runs around 33 - 35%, with 33% more recently.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's ' Own the Parliament ' Strategy

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:57:00 +0000

Posted: 3/1/2010 10:45:56 AM The Globe and Mail

Prorogation 'lit the fuse,' but is furor fizzling? Campbell Clark, Mar. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prorogation-lit-the-fuse-but-is-furor-fizzling/article1485006/ Tab 11

Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?

Prorogation was a cold blooded, self-serving, totally politically motivated act, of a nature that we have come to expect from Stephen Harper and his Con's, the Canadian people be Damned.

Also, every one knows the real reason for Proroguing is to try to shut down investigation of the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up scandal and put some distance behind it. It was either face the music now or face the music later. Harper chose later since, it couldn't be much worse. (After seeing the huge upswell against him and his government because of Prorogation, Harper is now trying to say that he was talked into it and really did want to do it - the 'Devil Made Me Do It' defence)

And, of course, perhaps in the meantime he could convince Canadians of what a great Prime Minister he is by, for example, suggesting that if were not for Harper spending countless (on because the actual amounts are redacted by the Harper government) billions on converting Canada's military to a 'fighting machine', so that he, MacKay, O'Connor, et al, could 'associate themselves' with the military and play soldier, the World would have fallen short in their assistance of Haiti after the earthquake. Harper made this revelation in Haiti the other day - "To do soft power, you need hard power", wow, what a Zen Master, Yoda step aside. He chose Haiti to do this, of course, so the Canadian Media and Opposition Parties could not confront him with the error in his thinking.

Now I am sure Harper will tout how he is responsible for Canada great showing at the Olympics - who knows how, perhaps Harper will explain that his heavy handed abuse of Canadian Democratic Institutions, in-your-face statesmanship and hyper political self-serving served as an inspiration to all.

(By the way, congratulations to all the Olympic competitors for making such a great Games, and to all the Canadians, especially our Hockey Teams - it serves as a great example of what the nations of the world can achieve despite politics).

It is not the political power that is the problem it is the people, Harper and the Cons, to whom we entrusted power, wielding it solely for political purposes.

We can see this with Harper's abuse of the Prorogation power as well. This power has been in the hands of every Prime Minister of Canada since Confederation, including PM who had very large majorities, like Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.

It is only with Harper that we have this crisis in Canadian Democracy and call to bring in rules to limit the arbitrary and self-serving abuse of power by the PM.

It is not the rules that need changing it is the leadership.

The big difference with Harper and the Con's compared to previous governments is that previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.

Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.

Harper is only concerned with power, obtaining it, consolidating it and maintaining it, the Good of Canada be damned.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper v. Ignatieff = Bad v. Good

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:01:00 +0000

Submitted 8:50am PST, 28 Feb.'10 The Toronto Star
Siddiqui: Michael Ignatieff same as Stephen Harper on key issues, Haroon Siddiqui, Feb 28 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/772319--siddiqui-michael-ignatieff-same-as-stephen-harper-on-key-issues#article p.4

Ignatieff and the Liberals the Same As Harper and the Con's - Surely, Sorry I mean, Haroon, You Jest.

In archetypes, that's like saying Micheal the Archangel is the Same as Lucifer because they Fought each Other

Stephen Harper and the Cons are extremist, right wing ideologues.

Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals are moderates

Harper's polices are based on their own agenda and the good of Canada be damned.

Liberals when in power, simply, have shown themselves as moderates whose polices are rationally based, given the circumstances and the good of all Canadians.

Harper and the Con's are dragging us back into a dark age where fear, intolerance and irrationalism reign supreme.

Ignatieff and the Liberals are set to lead us in this new Golden Age of Human Rights.

Harper has spent a greater part of his public life with the agenda of tearing asunder Canada than Ignatieff has spent being outside Canada.

Ignatieff has the education and experience required to lead this great and culturally, socially, ideologically, religiously, economically diverse and tolerant society which makes up Canada.

Simply put, Harper does not.

(Haroon Siddiqui if you want to compare Harper and Ignatieff you should set out their Resumes for everyone to see.)

Harper and the Con's bases their policies on right wing extremist ideas as handed down to him by his American overlords. Ignatieff and the Liberals are going to the people, all the people.

Harper has indicated that his strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.

Harper makes all efforts to hide what he an his government is doing. Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid having to stand up and 'face the music' regarding the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing Harper cover-up.

The Liberals under Paul Martin, stood up and took responsibility for the Sponsorship Scandal and called a public Inquiry. They did this because it was the right (morally right that is) and despite the negative political repercussions, including creating the circumstances for Harper attaining government.

Harper and the Con's do and say everything for political gain only. Truth, integrity, decency, fairness have no place with them . They are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, without a care for Canada.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using to the above ends no matter how reprehensible and morally and secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional, fogged level, with a total disregard for the truth.

Harper bases everything his does on politics and what he thinks will help him to clutch and grab onto power and nothing on what is best for Canada and our nation.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Appointments - You Aint Seen Nothin Yet

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:03:00 +0000

Michael Ignatieff objects to Tory choice
for rights-agency chief, Campbell Clark, Feb. 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/michael-ignatieff-objects-to-tory-choice-for-rights-agency-chief/article1481604/Tab 22

Harper and the Con's are right wing extremist ideologues. Their predecessor Reform and Alliance were,
of course, right wing extremist ideologues. We all know this.

The longer Harper and the Con's are in power the more Canada is transformed into an right wing extremist society, where intolerance reigns supreme.

It's as simple as that, Harper shutting down all the rocket scientists won't prevent Canadians from seeing this for themselves.

Harper has indicated that his strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.

This strategy is insidious since it is taking several year to come to fruition. It is far too blunt to fire everybody and make new, partizan appointments - it would wake Canadians up to what he is doing. So, Harper must combine a shrewdly chosen combination of firings and waiting for opportunities including thru attrition.

The next few years will be vital. The Senate has of course reached that critical point. Another major Canadian Institution that protects our democracy and civil right is the Supreme Court of Canada. The pattern appears to be multiple retirements in relatively short periods of time and we may be coming up to one of these periods in the next year or two. If Iggy is complaining about the Harper and the Con government's appointment to the arms-length agency Rights and Democracy, just wait.

The only solution is to get rid of Harper and the Con's as soon as possible, unless you like an intolerant, extremist, right wing ideologically based society run by the Executive, where Democracy is merely for show.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Harper + Bernier = Con'd Again !

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:21:00 +0000

Posted: 2/25/2010 10:59:29 AM The Globe and Mail
Maxime Bernier challenges climate science, Norman Spector, February 24, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/maxime-bernier-challenges-climate-science/article1479289/ Tab 16

Taking Action Against Global Warming is the Right (morally, that is) Thing to Do.

"What is certain is that it would be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars and to impose unnecessarily stringent regulations to solve a problem whose gravity we still are not certain about." (Norman Spector translation)

Maxime Bernier is approaching the global Warming problem on an emotional not rational basis, designed to incite the Con core-supporters concentrated West of Manitoba.

No Body or Organization that has responsibility would base their policies on such an extreme, absolutist perspective.

The only time we will be certain about Global Warming and its catastrophic impact around the world is when it happens, which will be far too late. Even then there will be Con deniers.

If there is more than a mere possibility that even a fraction of the damage predicted will occur because of our activities now in and in the past, we must do something about it. We must do it now since later it will be too late.

Of course, this is simply looking at the problem in a rational, logical 'risk management' approach.

There is no doubt that Bernier's approach is deliberate and is espousing the true attitudes of Stephen Harper, the Con Party and all the die-hard supporters of the Conservative Party. There is no doubt that the only reason Harper appeared to have 'abandoned' this position a few years ago is he wants to hold onto power and try not to look too politically motivated and self-serving in the International Community. There is no doubt that it is timed to be released just before a mayor report on the inefficiencies of the tar-sands due to royalties etc. It is easy to see where this is all headed.

Whereas, Harper's base is in Alberta. They make up the die-hardest of his supporters, and perhaps the source of the lion's share of the Con's funding. Harper, from the start has done everything to increase Alberta' autonomy and protect its oil industry, and Canada be damned - this is nowhere more apparent than Harper's policies on Global Warming. Natural Resources Department assessment indicates that the projected increase to economic growth from the oil industry is $885 billion between 2000 and 2020, including growth of $634 billion in Alberta. Just imagine how much the benefit would remain in Alberta if there were no Federal taxes. Then there is the transfer payments, which would be hugely increased, that would be done away with. You do the math.

When all those countries that have not contributed to Global Warming or benefited from it but suffer the greatest devastating impact of it turn to Canada and see that we not only contributed to it, did nothing to stop it, but in actuality have benefited, we will be lucky if all they do is sue us for trillions in law suits similar to the tobacco suits. It will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Posted February 25th 2010, 12:27pm Toronto Sun
Mad Max makes sense on climate change
By LORRIE GOLSTEIN, QMI Agency
Last Updated: February 25, 2010 2:00am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/
lorrie_goldstein/2010/02/24/13013311.html
Tab 3

Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:16 AM
Harper's Mad Max headache
Robert Silver
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/harpers-mad-max-headache/article1480814/
tab 4

- Get Rid of Harper and Stop This Extreme Abuse

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:51:00 +0000

The Tornoto Star (no posted were allowed)

Tories sniped at firearm data Challenges held up RCMP report backing long-gun registry until after key Commons vote, Kevin Frayer, Feb 22 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/769298--tories-sniped-at-firearm-data

My reading of the article:

Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan's office sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan tells us he had the Report "for several days".

***

This obscuration, obstruction, manipulation, suppression and distortion by Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party, this time then - Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, just goes on and on and on. When will it stop.

This abuse of power, like so many others, has been uncovered by the paper trail, especially E-mails, obtained thru Access To Information.

No wonder Harper and his PMO are so dead set against Access To Information.

Unfortunately, as has been suggested (see my posting below "Harper - PMO - Prime Modus Operandi", 22 Feb.'10) the PMO and government staffers will simply stop using E-mails and start doing everything by word of mouth.

There is only one way to stop this extreme abuse - get rid of Harper and his Con's and sooner rather than later.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper and His Con's Are Not the PC's of Old

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:22:00 +0000

Last best hope for democracy in Canada: An appointed Senate Upper chamber selected by blue-ribbon panel would be valuable check on excessive PM power, Senator Elaine McCoy, Feb 22 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/768518--last-best-hope-for-democracy-in-canada-an-appointed-senate

Here, Here!

Anyone who tries to suggest that Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party are somehow identified with the Progressive Conservative Party of old, will have a very difficult time explaining away this article.

(Oh, and by the way, did I mention, Senator's proposal is very similar to mine - see below.)

Senator Elaine McCoy, Feb 22 2010:

. . .

"So let's start again. Let's take the proposition that an independent, appointed Senate is, after all, Canada's last best chance for democracy.

We'd still be left with the problem of how we appoint senators, of course. But surely we can figure out how to do that without prime ministerial intervention.

It is, when you get right down to it, a prerogative exercised by the Governor General. That she takes advice is a good thing. For years now, however, we've accepted that she only take advice from the prime minister. What if, instead, she convened a blue ribbon advisory panel to help choose senators?

The panel could identify outstanding Canadians with a proven record of dedication to what's best for the country, men and women who could stand tall and say to our elected members, "Are you sure that's what you want to do?"

As Senator John Abbott declared, speaking in 1890, that's our job. "Let us take care," he said, "that no temporary fit of prejudice or passion, injurious to our country or disadvantageous to our interests is allowed to force a measure through this Parliament without giving to the people a further opportunity for considering it ..."

Being appointed, individual senators can stand up and do what Abbott called on us to do without worrying about whether we have a job at the end of the day. At least that gives our nation one last bulwark against overbearing executive power.

What it gives us, in short, is a constitutionally protected place where Canadians from all parts of the country and all across the political spectrum can make their voices heard. "

***
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.

. . .

This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.

This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.

A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.

- Harper - PMO - Prime Modus Operandi

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:56:00 +0000

Submitted: 8:50am, PST, 22 Feb.'10 The Hill Times

Cabinet ministers' offices regularly interfere in ATI requests, says Tory staffer, Jeff Davis, 22 Feb.'10
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/ati-02-22-2010 Tab 1

Stephen Harper and the Con's 'P.M.O.' (Prime Modus Operandi) for damage control is never to take the moral high ground - i.e., stand up and take responsibility, but to blame someone else when one of their strategies gives bad results. If they feel that is not working they then run around claiming that the Liberals did the same thing when they were in office. This time it must be a serious issue since they seem to be doing both, at the same time.

Harper and the Con's abuse of Access To Information is on a level never experienced in Canada, not even close, and is part of their general policies of suppression, distortion, obscuration and obstruction. In fact, Harper has implemented this strategy to a level not seen in Western Democracies in recent history. Access to Information is, by necessity, one the first casualties of an extremist, right wing ideologically driven government.

"Ms. Legault said her investigation will be examining whether or not Sec. 67.1 of the Access to Information Act was breached which is an indictable or summary offence. "

Ms. Legualt might look into possible sanctions against counseling, procuring, as well, while she's at it.

"Meanwhile, after seeing Mr. Togneri hung out to dry, the Conservative source told The Hill Times extra caution will be taken not to leave a paper trail.

'I'm a lot more careful now with any conversations I have with my ATIP officer,' the staffer said. "They're all in person now, whereas before I would sometimes send emails.' "

Therein lies the rub.

There is zero chance Harper and the Con's will change their interference with the release of information - they are simply too good at it and it is simply too effective. They will simply become more sophisticated about it.

Perhaps the Civil Service can whistle blow each time the PMO or government staffers interfere in the ATI process, whether verbally or otherwise. After all, isn't that at the heart of the Harper Whistler Blower policies. Not!

The viscous personal attack on Richard Colvin for doing his job by Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con's, was no accident. It was designed precisely to discourage proper minded Civil Servants from stepping forward - just another part of their general strategy to suppress, distort, obscure, obstruct.

There is only one solution. Give Harper and his gang of Con's the Boot and sooner, rather than later.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Mr. Harper - Canada is No Iran

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:09:00 +0000

Submitted: 8:56am, 21 Feb.'10 - cbc.ca
Catholic Register takes on Ignatieff, Neil Morrison, February 18, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/catholic-register-takes-on-ignatieff.html, Tab 21

It seems to me that what Michael Ignatieff asked was whether Stephen Harper intends to withdraw support for family planning. If so, it appears to be an abandonment of Canada's current position, as well as opposed to that of Britain and the G-8 generally.

I have been unable to confirm for myself (see below) that "It is astonishing and sad that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is advocating that Canada fund overseas abortions . . . 'sad to see Ignatieff making such a negative proposal.'" (as attributed to Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins by the Catholic Register)

Canada is a secular society. When I ran as the Liberal candidate in '04 I made it clear that for me abortion is a matter of personal conscience. This is, of course, based, in part, on my strong belief in the necessity of separation of State and Church, basing Government polices on the realities and not ideology, and probably most important, acknowledging that there may be many, many people in Canada, and around the world, that simply don't subscribe to one particular system of religious beliefs - i.e. Canada is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about).

We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.

If abortion is not made available then women, especially young women, can find themselves in the hands of illegal butchers. It is my understanding that that is the point that Ignatieff was making; that is the point that the G8 countries are making; and, this is the point that the UK Department for International Development: "Unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications".

Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. . . ."

Ignatieff
(http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/women+health+initiative+must+include+abortion+Ignatieff/2514470/story.html)

"If you're going to invest in women, you've got to invest in the full gamut of reproductive health services," he said, winning applause from an audience of Liberal MPs and representatives of about 50 non-government aid, rights and humanitarian organizations.

"This is the last place to start playing politics here and ideology here. Women are entitled to the full gamut of reproductive health services and that includes termination of pregnancy and contraception."

At a news conference later in the day, Ignatieff cited former U.S. government policy under the Bush administration which withheld federal funds from international agencies that supported abortion.

"We don't want us to go that way," he said. "We want to make sure that women have access to all the contraceptive methods available to control their fertility because we don't want to have women dying because of botched procedures, we don't want to have women dying in misery. We want women to care for themselves better and then look after their kids better . . . let's keep the ideology out of this and move forward."

"We've had a pro-choice consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to hold it."

***
Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. But it's a bit reckless to make this the sole focus of the conversation since it has the potential to derail the entire initiative. . . . "

***
DFID (UK Department for International Development)

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2009/Policy-on-safe-and-unsafe-abortion/

14 October 2009
International Development Minister, Mike Foster, said:
"Every year a devastating number of women die because of unsafe abortion. If we ignore this issue, the stark reality is that millions more women will suffer, and back street practices will continue to increase the pressure for treatment on already overburdened health services.
"Better access to family planning information and contraception is of vital importance in eliminating unsafe abortion but the truth is that it is not always enough. That is why the Department for International Development will continue to support the prevention of unsafe abortion as part of broader efforts to improve sexual and reproductive health."

DFID's policy
DFID supports safe abortion on two grounds. First, it is a right. Women have the right to reproductive health choices. Second, it is necessary. 20% of pregnancies globally end in induced abortion; unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications. This preventable mortality and ill-health due to unsafe abortion is seriously undermining countries’ ability to achieve the fifth Millennium Development Goal (to improve maternal health) and places a high burden on already over-stretched health systems. But DFID does not support abortion as a method of family planning.
In countries where it is legal, DFID will support programmes that make safe abortion more accessible. In countries where it is illegal and mortality and morbidity is high, DFID will make the consequences of unsafe abortion more widely understood, and will consider supporting processes of legal and policy reform.

- 'Harper' = 'Hypocrite' - in the Canadian vernacular

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:58:00 +0000

Posted: 2/20/2010 1:52:47 PM The Globe and Mail
'An attack on Israel would be considered, an attack on Canada', Steven Chase, February 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/an-attack-on-israel-would-be-considered-an-attack-on-canada/article1470211/

Doesn't Israel normally have a co-alition government. And, in fact, they have one now.

How can Harper have such unconditional support for Israel, when he is so ideologically opposed to co-alitions and considers them such a violation of the Democratic process.

I would use the 'H' word - hypocrite, not 'Harper' (although they are fast becoming synonymous in Canadian the vernacular).

Oh, sorry, Harper doesn't have to be consistent or even be rational and he certainly wasn't 'elected' Prime Minister for his statesman qualities or by placing the good of Canada ahead of sheer partizan politicking.

Don't tell me we're being Con'd again and Harper is just doing it to pick up some votes, that wouldn't be very statesmanlike.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html