Comments

- Harper – Extremist Right Wing Idealogue – Canadian Election

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:01:00 +0000

My Comment

[as posted to G&M article, 4 Oct.’08, “Harper dismisses new plagiarism allegations”: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081004.wharperplagiarism1004/BNStory/Front/:]

This is only “standard political rhetoric” for extreme right wing conservative idealogues.

Also, Harper statement adopted from Mike Harris is extremist right wing conservative code for ignoring what is best for Canadians and imposing extreme right wing ideology – vis.: "Thinking about things from a new and different perspective IS NOT ABOUT READING THE POLLS AND HAVING FOCUS GROUP TESTS. (emphasis added)

*******

Harper’s response to accusations of plagiarizing Mike Harris:
“In this case, we're talking about a couple of sentences of fairly standard political rhetoric.”

Harper’s statement:
"Thinking about things from a new and different perspective is not about reading the polls and having focus group tests. It is never easy because it takes courage, conviction and the strength to know that taking a new and innovative course is going to make change for the better. Genuine leaders are the ones who do the right thing."

Harris’ Statement:
"Genuine leaders are the ones who do the right thing. Leaders are the ones who do what they say they are going to do, despite the opposition and protests and complaints from the special interests who support the status quo."

- Harper – Tough on Crime

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:52:00 +0000

Comments on:
CBC “Tories would end house arrest sentences for serious crimes: Harper”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/23/harper-house-arrest.html?Authorized=1&AuthenticationKey=2_50_57a1e73d-a238-4cdc-960e-ec0fe12abe72.pakcebhmnjlldh#socialcomments-submit

Posted 23 Sep.’08, 9:10 pm, PDT

Harpers' statement, “Listiening to ordinarty people” is obviously right wing extremist code for being based on extreme right wing conservative ideology i.e what Harper and the Conservatives want and not on what studies and professional opinion indicate is the best way to handle these matters. That this is extreme right wing ideology is bolstered when Harper goes on to elaborate that "Our party believes that …”. It is further demonstrated by his statement that “Yes, we believe they're wrong," when referring to the professionals in the field such as criminologists and police.

It is shocking to think that in this day and age we could have someone seriously running to lead this country who out of hand and categorically states, without any objective basis, that the professionals in the field are wrong. In this golden age of human rights and enlightened approaches to society’s problems, this is a throw back to the “dark ages”. Harper’s statements are indicative of the type of ‘approach’ that in a bygone era of fear, superstition and ignorance brought executions in public squares and cutting people’s hands off for stealing, witch hunts and inquisitions.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Harper Extremist Right Wing Agenda – Canadian Election

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:27:00 +0000

The Harper government’s strategy from the time it took office was to slash taxes to the point that there is no appreciable surplus. This, obviously, was not an accident but a well thought out strategy. For one thing it was intended to make people ‘Happy with Harper’ by reducing taxes. For another thing, their obvious strategy is that any programs promised by the Liberal or other parties, would be attacked on the grounds that taxes would have to be increased to support it. The more comprehensive the policy the bigger the attack. On the other hand the Cons are employing the strategy of ‘a plethora of micro policies’ – small policies that are focused on a small, well defined segments of the voter population, aimed at maximizing media attention but claiming low costs to implement and simple top understand. It also allows them to do this on a continuous basis throughout the campaign. When in power they bring in these micro-policies and claim that they are a party of action and fulfill their promises. On the other hand, their true agenda is brought in through stealth – there are many examples, for example in the last Budget regarding funding for films, the amendments to the Immigration Act (IRPA), criminal laws being extended to the fetus, and others, as well as administrative changes.

In actuality reducing taxes to the extreme is one of the objectives that the paper by Mike Harris and Preston Manning for the Fraser Institute just before Harper was elected and is part of a far reaching, well defined, Extreme Right Wing agenda. They recommend reduced government spending – which Harper does seem t have got to yet.

By slashing taxes to such an extent Harper has weakened Canada’s ability to withstand hash economic times through social policies (enshrined in the Canadian way of life and distinguishes us from the Americans). This of course will be very important in the next year or two. Disjointed ‘micro-policies’ also weakens our ability to deal with large problems like the environment and the economy in a coherent, comprehensive and effective fashion. For Harper and the Con’s this is not a bad thing since they really don’t want to ‘deal with the environment’ but would rather push it off to the individual Provinces ‘À la Firewall’. They really don’t want comprehensive Federal social programs since this detracts from their Laissez-faire, sink or swin, approach to the economy (which, of sourse, one of the major factors defining them as extremist, right wing) which again can be seen in Harper’s Firewall Letter.

Harper's reducing surpluses to zero is actually a result of his sink or swim approach to our economic activity. That is, people should not turn to the Federal government for help when they are thrown into dire need due to economic downturns, they should turn to themselves. This became very clear when Flaherty told the municipal leader to stop whining when The Federation of Canadian Municipalities released a study last November warning that much of the nation's municipal infrastructure is "on the brink of failure" and will cost $123 billion to upgrade. Flaherty responded "we're not in the pothole business in the government of Canada." (see: Toronto Star, "Cities told to stop `whining'", 22 Nov.'07).

Here is one of the Harper quotes – Scary Stuff! it is something that everyone should consider when choosing how to vote:

· 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.
o Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994

The Liberal Party has a long tradition now (since Cretien) of sound fiscal management. Further they left the state of the Government finances and the state of the economy in very good shape, far beyond reasonable expectations.

Keep in mind that in Ontario the PC government was touting sound financial management right up to the end of their reign. When the Liberals took office they found a deficit of a billion dollars which the PC had not revealed. These are a lot of the same people that are now involved with the Harper and the Con Party.

Harper saying that Bob Rae “took a slowdown and turned it into the biggest recession since the 1930s” is obvious fear mongering and very much not true ( not to use the ‘liar’ word) .

- The Harper One-Man-Show Government - Is Good for a Banana Republic – Canadian Election

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:40:00 +0000

Submitted:

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/politicseconomy/assign_us.html
17 Sep.’08 – 9:23pm (PDT)

*************

I drafted this comment for Your Turn – 17 Sep.’08, but it ended before I was finished:.

I agree with the previous caller that suggested that it is the people the leader surrounds himself with that indicates a good leader.

To elaborate, in a modern democratic society that is based on a developed economy, running the government is simply too complex to have a “one person show” at the head of the government. Perhaps some ‘Banana Republic’ dictatorship can get by with one person making all the decisions, but not Canada.

Delegation of duties and authority is the hallmark of good leadership. Harper is very much a ‘one man show’ running the government. The Conservatives simply don’t have the depth on their bench to delegate responsibility. This may be inferred from Harper’s own actions to restrict his Ministers while Prime Minister – if they had the talent then why wouldn’t he use them. It is also made manifest with the Maxim Bernier affair. This also explains why Harper and his Conservatives avoid discussing issues head on, but try to obscure and obstruct with insults.

It is very clear, as demonstrated during the Liberal Leadership Race and after, that the Liberal Party has an abundance of talent. Further, the Liberal Party knows how to delegate authority as demonstrated during the Jean Chrétien era. The Harper style of leadership may be well suited for some third world Banana Republic but for Canada it is suggested that Stephane Dion and the Liberal Team is the best choice.

Lloyd MacIlquham

24. Great Balls of Fear Mongering, Batman - Canadian Election

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:40:00 +0000

Meanwhile, in the Batcave, Batman and Robin are discussing the Canadian Election including the Speech by Danny Williams, Harper extremist right wing,conservative Hidden Agenda, the In-and-out election financing scheme and the Harper strategy of addressing important issues with insults.

Robin: Holy forebodings, Batman, I see Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland is warning that “a majority government for Stephen Harper would be one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”

Batman: That’s right, Robin,

Mr. Williams is very upset because of promises made by Harper in the last election which he promptly broke after gaining power.

Robin: Didn’t we cover that in our segment “Holy Flip-Flops Batman! When Is A Promise Not A Promise”, Batman, back in January ‘07

Batman: Good memory, Robin! Harper tried to explain away his broken promise by suggesting that he had only been expressing a preference during the election.

Robin: Holy Duplicity, Batman, did anyone fall for this somewhat simplistic deception.

Batman: Certainly the Premier of Newfoundland didn’t, Robin and, as I recall, at the time he vowed to expose Harper during the election, which he is doing.

Robin: He certainly is not mincing words, Batman. He’s coming right out and calling Harper a ‘Fraud’.

Batman: Good observation, Robin. This is based on Stephen Harper’s own campaign literature proclaiming, "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept."

Robin: But Harper and the Con’s have broken other promises as well, Batman.

Batman: Yes, Robin, in my count, Harper has broken numerous promises since acquiring power, not the least of which, aside from Mr. Williams’ complaint is the Income Trust disaster, to the point of indicating an underlying design.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, by promising the people of Canada whatever he thinks they want to hear, without the intention of keep it if elected, and saying whatever he thinks is necessary, without the concern for its truth, in order to get them to vote for him and the Con’s.

Robin: Holy “Blue Shaft”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.

Batman: “Blue Shaft”, Robin? That’s Williams’ line, perhaps you can use something like “Holy Con-Job”. Robin: Thanks, Batman.

Holy “Con-Job”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.

Batman: By not voting them into power, Robin, and that is exactly what Mr. Williams is talking about and why he refers to a majority Harper government

as “one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”

Robin: Batman, what are others saying about all this?

Batman: Well, Robin, many people are speaking out.

Robin: Who, who, Batman?

Batman: At the start of this election Campaign Harper said that Dion would increase the GST.

Robin: Not the insidious GST, brought in by the last Conservative government.

Batman: Yes, Robin. Dion immediately responded by, quite unequivocally, stating that Harper was a liar.

Robin: Was he, … I mean, lying, Batman.

Batman: Well, Robin, one might expect that most people would,

when accused of lying, be quick to defend their statement, if indeed it is defensible. Harper has simply seemed to have shrugged it off

- a further indication that these are not mistakes but well thought out and executed attacks with total disregard for whether there is any truth to it.

Robin: Holy ‘Dirty Politics’, Batman, you mean there’s more.

Batman: There are more examples than bats in a belfry, Robin.

When the Harper team attacked the integrity of the father of a fallen war hero, Robin, even Layton felt compelled to point out that “the public only has to listen to the way that Conservative MPs and Harper conduct themselves in the House of Commons.

If you disagree with them, you are open season for an insult.” (Toronto Star, 11 Sep’08).

Then there’s the In-and-Out Election financing scheme, Robin. Harper and the Con’s response was to not only attack the integrity of other Parties, by asserting that they did the

same thing, which is apparently not the case at all, but also that of one of Canada’s most internationally respected institutions – Elections Canada, by accusing them of being biased towards the Liberals.

If Harper and the Con’s really believe that they are not

running afoul of election financing rules then perhaps Harper can show some leadership by stating that the Con’s will be doing the same thing in this election. By not so doing one might infer that these are carefully contrived and executed attacks designed to deflect attention from the real issue.

When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, the Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime

Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”.

Robin: Great Ball of Fear Mongering, Batman. How can the Prime Minister of our great land respond to such important issues with such vulgarities,

devoid of any considered, enlightened or informed thought, but focused entirely on insults and fear mongering.

Batman: These are not slips of the tongue, Robin, but carefully contrived and executed attacks with the intention of playing on people’s fears and

thereby acquiring power, of deflecting attention away from an open and informed discussion of the issues and, of dealing with matters to the benefit of a few and detriment of many.

Robin: Holy, right wing extremism, Batman. Why all the obstruction and obscuration.

Why doesn’t Harper encourage open, informed and transparent discussion of the issues.

Batman: Well, Robin, perhaps they fear people will see them for what they really are – extremist, right wing conservative.

Robin: Great Fraudian Slips, Batman. Then Harper saying the other day that he and the Cons’ “want to pull Canadians towards conservatives” is really a concern that Canadians will begin to realize the extent of their “Hidden Agenda” to make Canada extreme, right wing, conservative.

Batman: Yes, you have something there, Robin. It is how they think and approach everything.

Robin: And when Harper says in his new Ad “investments that will produce results”, ‘results’ refers to implementing the their extreme Conservative Agenda and make our great nation conservative.

Batman: You’re catching on, Robin. And there’s more, Robin. Now Harper is saying the Green Shift will plunge Canada into a recession and destroy national unity causing “all kinds of political tensions across the country."

Robin: Holy ‘hidden meaning’,

Batman, just what does Harper mean by “all kinds of political tensions across the country." It sounds like some kind of right wing extremist code to me.

Batman: Well, Robin, ever since the Firewall letter it has become clearer and clearer that Harper’s intention is to

shift power to the Provinces, in particular, Alberta and weaken Federalism. It appears, that it plays well in Quebec is a bonus for them and they use Quebec as a cover to obscure their real agenda and shift power to Alberta and isolate it from the rest of Canada.

Harper’s inaction on Green House Gas issues, is a prime example of this overall strategy.

Robin: How so, Batman?

Batman: Well, Robin, by not taking action Federally it forces each Province to enact their own policies to reduce

Green-House-Gases, including Alberta. That, in turn gives the Federal government an excuse not to get involved and makes it much more difficult to implement any plan for the overall good of the country.

Robin: Holy ‘Clarity’, Batman, you might say it’s an issue of:

“Each Province acting unilaterally and in its own interest does not a Nation make.”
Robin: What can we do, Batman.

Batman: We can only beseech each and every Canadian to think carefully before casting their vote, especially giving Harper and the Con’s a majority gov’t.

We've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 15 September, 2008 (2008-09-15)

- Canadian Election – Fear Mongering by Harper and Layton

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:51:00 +0000

Canadian Election...

here is my Comment on the G&M article, 11 Sep, "Green Shift touted as both saviour and damnation"
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnlede0911/BNStory/politics/home)

“Fear Mongering” – blatant and misleading – is my response to Harper’s and Layton’s claim that the Green Shift will plunge the economy into recession.

If Harper and Layton are concerned about wealth and power being concentrated they should look at the high price of oil. If they are concerned about our economy going into recession they should look at the large number of manufacturing jobs being lost in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. They should also look at the unfair treatment Ontario receives regarding the distribution of our tax dollars as Ontario’s Premier so justly pointed out just a few days ago and the anti-Ontario attitude of Harper and the Conservative Party.

So far Harper’s response to the Green Shift:

When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. Now he is saying it will plunge Canada into a recession.

This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base on fear mongering and insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian.

Jack Layton is trying to tell us that his environmental polices are “identical” to those of Obama (Toronto Star: “NDP to take aim at PM, shrug off Dion” September 05, 2008.

In reality Layton and the NDP is diametrically opposed to this policy of Obama.. A Foxnews article on 4 Aug., states that “A new Obama ad released Monday trumpets his proposal to revive the windfall profits tax on energy companies . . .

The tax would target “big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate,” an announcer in the ad says. Obama has pushed for such a tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs.”

This is clearly along the same lines as the Dion Green Shift and has nothing to do with a ‘cap-and-trade system’, which is the heart of the Layton’s environmental polices.

Danny Williams suggested the Liberal have the ‘Green Shift’ and the Conservatives have the ‘Blue Shaft’ now we have the NDP ‘Orange Sham’.

- Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:15:00 +0000

Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country

I grew up in the Beaches and went to Grade School and High School there. This Summer I came back to visit and went to the Beaches Jazz Festival. It was almost like I never left. It is very much ‘you can take the boy out of the Beaches but you can’t take the Beaches out of the boy’.

One thing I learned growing up, both inside and outside school, was to view things with an open mind, not to have preconceived notions about how things should be and to be able to adjust my thinking as I am confronted with new information and a new context.

I grew up in a very much an open, free and tolerant community, where informed, open and transparent discussion was always the order of the day. And, I know I wasn’t the only one.

I am saying this now because I think that all those living in the Beaches ought to consider this when deciding how to vote.

Any party that is ideologically driven can, by definition, not be free in their views since their views are based on preconceived notions about what is right and what is wrong and not open to change.

They can not have open discussions since invariably someone will confront them with a reality that is diametrically opposed to their way of thinking and which might require them to somehow admit that their position is wrong.

They cannot be transparent since that would expose the weakness in their position. They can only obscure and obstruct. Their arguments boil down to “I’m right – you’re wrong”. They are very reluctant to expose themselves to rational analysis and attempt to keep the discussion at an irrational, emotional level.

They consider implementing their ideology without consideration to anything else as being ‘decisive’; and, taking time to listen to the other side of an issue and perhaps adapting and adjusting their position as called for to be a sign of weakness and lacking in leadership.

You can see all this with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party which is motivated by extreme right wing ideology. It seems to me that there are many examples of Harper and the Conservative party obscuring issues and obstructing attempts to get at the truth. Harper and the Conservatives deal with issues not by open, free and transparent debate but by appealing to people emotions and, of course, hurling insults. Their attacks are designed on an emotional level.

I was listening to a Conservative strategist on 6 Sep. (Geoff Norquay, I believe) who stated that Harper [is someone] “who knows where he wants to take the country”. It seems to me that his type of statement is indicative of extreme right wing ideology. First of all it is referring to where “he [Harper]” wants to take the country and leave no room for debate, consultation or consideration of other points of view. That a majority of people in Canada may not want to go where he wants to take them is not a consideration to Harper or the Conservatives. That a majority of people in Canada are not made privy to where Harper and the Conservatives want to go is no accident.

Second, it is anything but transparent – it is based on the belief that the important thing is that Harper knows and whether we, the people, know is not a consideration. This statement is designed to be dynamic and decisive. But, it is appeals to the emotions and not the intellect. This statement is not a slip of the tongue either, since last October he was quoted as saying “After 18 months, I think the PM and the cabinet have a much clearer sense of what the issues are and the direction that they want to take the country" (Toronto Star, “Harper, Tories riding high”, October 22, 2007). It is where they want to take the country that has any significance to them. Given that Harper and the Conservative had a minority government it is actually quite startling to see things phrased in such one-sided, uncompromising terms. It is clearly a manifestation of extreme ideology, in this case right wing.

Global Warming is, of course, a prime example. Nothing in my lifetime, except in the ‘60s with the threat of nuclear war, has there been such a grave threat to our fundamental way of life than Global Warming. It’s seriousness is heightened by the fact that it may be decades before the full extent of the impact will be felt. It is not my generation that will suffer the most but our children and their children.

Any political leader that proposes significant steps be taken ought to be considered with the utmost seriousness. When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian. It is deliberately aimed to play on people’s emotions and fears. When Dion recently explained that after consultation with many people throughout the country he would, within the Green Shift policy, increase benefits for farmers, etc., to offset their use of diesel fuel, the Harper and Conservative response was that Dion is indecisive, flip-flopping and not a leader. How can anyone suggest that informed, open and transparent discussion to the benefit of all Canadians is indecision and lacking in leadership, unless of course they are motivated be extremist beliefs.
Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien criticized Harper for his in-your-face [my words] diplomacy with China. This is a very important issue. For example, many billions of dollars flow from Canada to China every year. Tourism from China would allow us to recoup some of this and would offset the loss of tourists from the US and from within Canada (due to the high price of gasoline and the Canadian dollar). The main obstacle to the floodgates of tourists from China coming to Canada is the Harper approach to diplomacy with the Chinese government. Rather than engaging in an open, informed and rational discussion of this very important matter to which Chrétien was drawing attention, the response by the Conservative Party was to attack Chrétien’s integrity (by asserting that Chretien’s China policy was influenced by his post-politics business plans, and the interests of rich and powerful friends - G&M, “Personal financial interest behind Chrétien attack on PM's China policy, Kenney says”, August 20, 2008). Chrétien pointed out that Harper not attending the Olympics would have been considered an insult by the Chinese government and that it was likely politically motivated. Rather than explain his decision not to attend, something that all Canadian have a right to know, we are left wondering why. Perhaps, when it gets right down to it, the Chinese government simply did not invite him because of his approach to them and he didn’t want Canadians to know the true impact of his ‘in-your-face’ diplomacy.

This response was no slip of the tongue by a rogue MP. This is a deliberate attempt to obscure and obstruct. For example, when Elections Canada executed a search warrant of Conservative Party headquarters. The Conservative Party’s response was to attack the integrity of Elections Canada. When confronted with the Cadmen tape, their response was to challenge the integrity of the tape.

Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- The legality of Harper calling a General Election 3

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:36:00 +0000

I also submitted this (after editing slightly to meet the 2000 character limitation) for the Monahan Webcast, but apparently was not considered:
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/CommentStory/specialComment/home)

With all due respect, I found your opinion as set out in "The request the G-G can't refuse" to be quite weak (see comments by “Lloyd MacIlquham”).

However, of much greater concern is the possibility (see comment by R Miller from Halifax) that perhaps you might have ties to the Conservatives in that you may have ties to the Fraser Institute a (in my view) very right wing conservative think tank boasting amongst its ranks, Preston Manning (Senior Fellow) and Mike Harris (Senior Fellow) and so your opinion may be biased. Of course, everyone is entitled to express their opinions, even if it is biased and politically motivated. However, when they are presented as being the head of a prestigious academic institution, especially in Law, it seems to me that people look for an objective, disinterested assessment of the situation (see comment by: brian bishop from Brantford, Canada) and not someone using their position to promote their personal, subjective views and interests.

Please clarify. Lloyd MacIlquham

R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Slightly off topic, but as an academic, would Professor Monahan have to publically disclose whether he has had an association or financial assistance from any of the following groups ?
-The Civitas Society,
-The Fraser Institute
-The Atlantic Institute of Market Studies
-The Donner Institute
It would seem somewhat relevant before presenting an opinion piece arguing that a Governor General cannot refuse a Prime Minister's request for an election which is certainly far from clear from precedent, Bill C-16 or this discussion.

If Professor Monahan was printing this article for a reputable legal journal, would he not have to disclose possible conflicts of interest as is done for publications in medical journals ?

brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: It would be in everyone's best interest to read Patrick Monahan's bio before posting frivolous uneducated rebuttals towards his article! …

- The legality of Harper calling a General Election 2

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:26:00 +0000

I submitted this for the Monahan Webcast, but apparently was not considered:

[Monahan, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/BNStory/specialComment/home/

"The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election.”]

It seems to me that one must be very careful when comparing our system to the English (“Westminster” systems) since they differ in one very important aspect which is central to the issue at hand. We have a Constitution (and a Charter) which is the Paramount Law of the Land. Tradition does not trump the Constitution in Canada. In England, to my understanding anyway, Tradition is the constitution and there is no “Constitution” to trump it. In Canada, Tradition may be persuasive provided it does not go contrary to the Constitution or the Laws of Canada, both in the letter and the intent, otherwise our Constitution and Laws become ancillary and whole basis for the rule of law collapses into anarchy. Your opinion does not seem to touch on this, essential difference at all.

You assert “a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister”. However, this is the issue. It may be that this tradition may not go against the letter of the Constitution (although this is debatable) but it certainly goes against the application of Bill C-16 in both its meaning and intent. If the provisions of Bill C-16 are to mean anything and there is a presumption that they do, then they must free the GG hands to dissolved parliament under these circumstances. One of the things that the GG ought to determine is if, in fact, the government does not enjoy the confidence of Parliament and this can only, in this circumstance anyway, be determined while Parliament is sitting. It would seem prudent that the Governor general obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, if the government of the day requests that parliament be dissolved and does not co-operate in resolving this issue, the GG could turn to the opposing parties to see if they could form a government, if only long enough to have this issue resolved.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- The legality of Harper calling a General Election

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:29:00 +0000

Comment on the G&M article dated 29 August by Patrick Monahan, "The request the G-G can't refuse" (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wcoessay30/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=2)

With all due respect I can�t agree with your [Patrick Monahan's - see above] assessment of Bill C-16 and the current situation regarding the dissolution of parliament.

It seem that you are suggesting that it is the �letter of the law� that is applicable at the expense of the true intent (as in part expressed, as you point out, by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, I will refrain from the quote).

If one looks at the letter of the law then, it is submitted:

Clearly Bill C-16 cannot impinge on the Governor-Generals Constitutional powers in this regard and any provisions so purporting would be of no force or effect. It is not required that any piece of legislation have a �saving� provision to assert this. Any legislation is read and applied within this context, as in accordance with the Paramountcy of the Constitution.

However, the above principle of Paramountcy applies to Constitutional powers but not traditions. In other words, the tradition that the Governor General follow the advise of the Prime Minister can be impinged by law.

To give the provision of Bill C-16 that states �Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor-General�s discretion� any meaning whatsoever (and lift it from pre-amble to provision) one ought to interpret it as explicitly freely the Governor-General from such traditions. In other words, had Bill C-16 not had this provision, then, perhaps your analysis would stand on better ground.

On the other hand, if government of the day does not, in actual fact, enjoy the confidence of parliament then the Governor General has no option but to either dissolve Parliament. Or, of course, she may approach the other parties regarding forming a government. In the unusual circumstances as we find them, it seems to me that this latter choice is the appropriate course of action and it would look better for Harper if she did (vis.: the other parties not being able to get it together adds support to his contention that parliament is dysfunctional).

Also, I can�t agree that how long the government in question has been in power is relevant and I am unable to find any basis for your assertion.

And, I can not concur with your conclude that the Harper government still enjoys the confidence of the House. This is very unclear and something that can only be determined when while the House is sitting. You base your conclusion on events during the last session. I don�t think that is valid. Whether a government enjoys the confidence of the House can change in the space of a day, and, obviously does (since Parliament is then forthwith dissolved or changed). I cannot see how one can state that Harper government still enjoys the confidence of the House before Parliament is resumed, especially given the current positions of the various parties.

It appears to me that everything points to having Parliament called and whether the Harper government enjoys the confidence of the House made manifest before Harper should approach the Governor-General to dissolve parliament and if he were to do that before then, not only are the Governor-General�s hands not bound but she ought to wait until the will of parliament is made manifest.

Lloyd MacIlquham, 31 Aug'08, all rights reserved

- Respect

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:16:00 +0000

Query: "Respect cannot be demanded it must be earned. Respect is earned only by giving it away."

Like so many so called "truisms" its acceptance is based on sounding nice but, in reality, is simply not true:

Every human being, by the very nature of their existence, is entitled to basic, fundamental respect. Whether this flows from being God's creations and everyone equal in his eyes or, whether simply because we are all the same and "in it together", it is an inalienable right that lies at the very heart of human rights and the dignity of mankind. This fundamental respect need not be earned and may not be lost. However, it can be denied by others at their own peril of doing irreparable harm to the dignity not to those being subjected but to their inner souls and their own self-respect. Also, it is not a question of giving it away but it flows automatically and freely by simply "doing onto other as you would have the do onto you".

Most human abuse and certainly wars, repression by those ruling countries, and the like, is sourced in denying others this basic, fundamental respect. Most animosity between individuals can be traced to originating from one person denying this basic, fundamental respect. When one denies another this basic, fundamental respect, the other has a right to demand otherwise and a duty to so do. By not standing up to such tyranny on a grand scale, or bullying on a personal level, one is abdicating the special place in nature we all have been granted and leaving future generations just that much closer to the law of the jungle.

A philosophy of "Respect cannot be demanded it must be earned. Respect is earned only by giving it away" makes human relations and interaction into a "zero sum game". It converts "respect" into the currency of exchange, used to manipulate, coerce and extort. But much worse, as with all such things, it is relied upon for the foundation of rationalizing one's actions and treatment of other thus obscures truth, blurring reality and killing the soul, one cut at a time.

W. Lloyd MacIlquham, 15 July, 2008 (all rights reserved)

22. Have You Had Enough ! Robin - The Maxim Bernier Affair

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 29 May 2008 05:52:00 +0000

Previously (episode 21, 18) Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights;

Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave . . .
Robin: Holy Revelations, this is beyond comprehension, Batman.

Batman: You opened with that line last time, Robin, what could possibly be more outrageous than what Harper has been doing to curtail the free flow of information.

Robin: I’ve just been reading about the resignation of the Honourable Maxime Bernier from the Foreign Affairs portfolio. What’s going on, Batman. It seems it just one thing after another with Harper and the Conservative Government

Batman: That’s right, Robin. The big concerns here are, why have Harper and the Con.’s been stonewalling any questions about security, despite how legitimate they are; why did Harper choose Bernier anyway; and, why are they so resistant to an independent investigation into the whole affair.

Robin: Holy, Obscure and Obstruct, Batman, perhaps they have something to hide, you know, a cover-up.

Batman: Well, Robin, you may have something there. Harper went on for 5 weeks stonewalling the Opposition when they asked questions about Canada’s security while all the time confidential documents had apparently gone out of and remained out of Bernier’s control.

Robin: But, Batman, wouldn’t that come to the attention of Foreign Affairs, or whomever else is in charge of such matters.

Batman: That certainly must be the case and that is what is so concerning about all this. It

seems that, perhaps, something is rotten in the state of Canada, Robin.

Robin: Great Shakespeare’s ghost, Batman. Didn’t Bernier make a number of serious gaffs while Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Batman: Apparently so, Robin, and that raises another issue, that is 'Why

was Bernier chosen for such a senior Ministerial portfolio'. Many people feel it was because Harper and the Con.’s wanted to promote their chances in Quebec in the next election.
Robin: Holy Serious compromise of our great nation’s security, Batman. You mean to say that Harper appointed Bernier to such

a sensitive and important position, not because of ability, but to get votes. I though Harper was supposed to be a political strategic genius and the man to bring integrity and transparency to our government.

Batman: Things are becoming much more transparent, Robin.

Robin: Well what does Harper have to say for himself.

Batman: Well, Robin, apparently Harper has said that he doesn’t believe national security was compromised.

Robin: But, isn’t stonewalling and refusing to do anything when our national interest is at

stake, a breach of national security in and of itself, Batman.
Batman: Yes, Robin, it certainly is to me. Harper as Prime Minister had an obligation to investigate and disclose to the Canadian people, immediately, when the possibility of a situation where national security could be breached was raised.

Robin: Batman, what is Harper`s response. He stonewalled for 5 weeks. Certainly it doesn`t lie in Harper`s mouth to say he didn`t know of any compromised confidential documents.
Batman: His response, apparently, was trying to say that it was strictly a personal affair and asserting "I don't take this subject seriously."

Now that things are coming to light his position seems to be that he knew nothing of the missing confidential documents until a couple of days ago, just a few hours before this matter was made public. Now he seems to be ignoring the Opposition calls for a Public Inquiry saying that the External Affairs Department will investigate.

Robin: But surely they are involved in all this, Batman, since it is their confidential documents that was apparently unaccounted for 5 weeks.

Batman: Your right, Robin, that is certainly one question that needs answering as well. This is not to say that they couldn`t do a good job, but it is the

appearance of the government investigating itself. It seems to me that it is better that some independent body do the investigating.

Robin: It just seems to be one thing after another with Harper government that throws his and the Con. Party`s integrity,

transparency and clarity into question. We've got to get our Canada back, Batman, before it's too late.

Batman: "Have you had enough" is all I can suggest to the people in this great nation of ours, Robin.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 28 May, 2008-05-28

-- Lloyd Live - “How Businesses on Vancouver Island can benefit from Immigration”

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:58:00 +0000

Lloyd Live:

broadcasting live from Nanaimo, British Columbia, on Vancouver Island.

"How Businesses can benefit from Immigration"

May 15, 2008, 7:00pm

Topics

Tourism: "You Snooze _ You Lose"

Vancouver Island is a great place to spend a vacation. It have many things to offer including great Summer weather, great out_doors experiences, great shore line and beaches, golf courses, and so on; and, of course no pollution. Canada’s Immigration policies can have a great effect on the number of people coming to Vancouver Island. This is particularly true for the emerging economies such as China, India and others which, for Canada, are untapped markets for tourism. With the Winter Olympics coming up this will likely have an even greater influence. This is a great opportunity for local businesses to join together take to make a common effort to attract these new markets and give them something to talk about. I am taking steps to set up an association for this purpose, Vancouver Island Ventures Association (VIVA Le Tourism). If you are interested then contact me.

Some Common Problems:

_ Competition from others areas of Canada that are "beating us to the start"

_ Tourists in China don’t know about Vancouver Island or what we have to offer

_ Inertia and the lack of will to seize the opportunity

May 22, 2008, 7:00pm

Topic

Employment: "All the Right Stuff"

One of the biggest problems that has come to my attention while practising Immigration law here in Central Vancouver Island Region is the difficulty of employers finding and keeping employees who are able and willing to work . This applies not simply to positions requiring individuals who are highly education, highly skilled and extensive experience. It also applies to less skilled positions. There are a number of Immigration programs available both at the Federal and Provincial that may be applicable to your situation.

Some Common Problems:

_ The employer is not aware of the Immigration program(s) that may be applicable

_ The employer is unaware of what is really required in making an application in the Immigration program

_ The employer has neither the time nor resources for finding someone from another country suitable for the position

***************************************************************

May 15, 2008, 7:00pm

QUE CARDS:

Hello.

This is Lloyd MacIlquham broadcasting live from Nanaimo, British Columbia, on Vancouver Island.

This is the inaugural Lloyd-Live broadcast, the first I what I hope will be many on issues Important to our community.

The Topic for this evening is "How Businesses can benefit from Immigration"

Due to technical reasons of bandwidth and time

This will be a 2 part series:

Tonight The first part:

Tourism: "You Snooze _ You Lose"

and

Next Thursday (May 22 at 7:00pm)

Employment: "All the Right Stuff"

These two issues apply to any community in Canada but I have found that they are particularly important to Vancouver Island.

I am not going to give a lecture on Immigration nor solve your problems, if you have any. This is simply a very informal discussion of the issues involved.

First a bit about myself.

I am a Lawyer licensed in both British Columbia and Ontario

I have a Juris Doctor Degree in Law from the University of Toronto

I also have a Master’s Degree in Science (Mathematics)

I have taught High school computer science

I, of course, maintain a Website and have had one since 1994, which I design and encode.

My Website is

http://www.cicblog.com

I have been practising law in the area of Immigration for over 17 years now both in Toronto and here on Vancouver Island.

Immportance of Immigration Generally:

One of the things I have noticed over the years is that many people simply don’t realize just how beneficial Canada’s Immigration policies can be, especially for business.

We have all heard how If it weren’t for new immigrants our population would not be increasing and how they give a support through their taxers to our aging population. These are important and well known and deal with people coming to Canada on as permanent basis as Immigrants.

Finding Workers

What is not so well known is that Canada’s Immigration policies can also be very useful in finding people where companies are unable to find people here that are able and willing. This is a particular problem for Vancouver Island.

Visitors

Canada Immigration policies also deal with people coming to Canada to visit, including tourists. Our Immigration policies determine for which countries people are required to have visitor visa’s (now referred to as Temporary Resident Visa’s) and for which countries people can simply hop on a plane and go through Canada customs when they get off (or drive, of course).

This is important for countries with expanding economies that are quickly developing a middle class with disposable incomes - for example China and India.

However, these countries typically have Visa restrictions which can make coming to Canada a very long and difficult process often with little chance of success at the end.

Tourism as a Export

Having people come to Canada to spend their money is every bit as good as sending them exports. It has the added advantage that they come here and meet us, see how we live and are exposed to our values. This of course leads to an increase in understanding and a decrease in mistrust between peoples. It can help to solve some of our current international problems and, of course, promotes trade.

Benefits of Tourism

For example say a businessman from China comes to Vancouver Island for a holiday. One of the first things he will notice, in addition to our wonderful natural surroundings, is just how pollution free we are, compared to him. Do you think this will not have an impact on him when he returns and compares what he and his children are living in.

This may seem insignificant but that how mountains are moved - one little ‘insignificant bit’ at a time.

He will also go back with a much better understanding of who we are and what our values are.

They will also go back with a much better idea of what we have to offer. Next time he is considering importing something he may very well give Canada a higher place on his "due diligence" list.

Tourism Contributes to Solving GW, World Peace and Pocket Book

So, as we can see, Canada’s Immigration policies regarding who can come to Canada to visit has a direct and important impact not only on our pocket books, but also reducing Global Warming and, indeed, peace and harmony throughout the World.

Today I will focus on our pocket books and leave World Peace and Global Warming to another day.

This of course leads me to my first Topic:

"Tourism: ‘You Snooze _ You Lose’"

Vancouver Island is a great place to spend a vacation. It have many things to offer including great Summer weather, great out_doors experiences, great shore line and beaches, golf courses, and so on; and, of course no pollution. Canada’s Immigration policies can have a great effect on the number of people coming to Vancouver Island. This is particularly true for the emerging economies such as China, India and others which, for Canada, are untapped markets for tourism. With the Winter Olympics coming up this will likely have an even greater influence. This is a great opportunity for local businesses to join together take to make a common effort to attract these new markets and give them an alternative to talk about.

We are at the early stages of setting up an organization for this purpose, one we refer to as "Vancouver Island Ventures" association ( tag line: "VIVA Le Tourism"). If you are interested then contact me at: lloydlive@cicblog.com

Some Common Problems:

_ Competition from others areas of Canada that are "beating us to the start"

_ Tourists in China don’t know about Vancouver Island or what we have to offer

_ Inertia and the lack of will to seize the opportunity

China is a good example.

As we all know China’s economy is more than simply "an immerging" economy. It has emerged and will only get bigger. This has created an ever increasing middle class of people. Typically they are in middle to high level business and government positions, professionals, self made buinessmen and their spouses and children. This of course, is the "Nouveau Riche". In China typically they have one child but families are close knit and this child is given the opportunities.

There are a number of issues regarding tourism from China.

- Approved Destination Status, given to countries by the Chinese government that allows licensed travel agencies in China to advertize and organize tours.

In January 2005 China agreed to grant Canada Approved Destination Status, with the details to be worked out. They are still working on them.

Apparently negotiations with the Chinese government have bogged down since 2005.

- Canada Immigration which issues Visitor Visas to Chinese that allows them to enter the country

- Chinese do not view Canada as a tourist destination

- The US has just been granted Approved Destination Status with a basic agreement in place. This will likely add to Canada’s obscurity and decrease its attractiveness. Since, once they have visited The US why bother with Canada.

- Chinese have even less idea about what Vancouver Island has to offer

- Once Canada receives Approved Destination Status it is likely that the Big Tour companies will take over, effectively leaving the small businesses involved in tourism "out of the loop", so to speak.

This is important since:

When was the last time a big bus pulled up to a local fishing charter to allow a pile of tourists off to go fishing.

Or, for that matter when was the last time a big tour bus pulled up to a local bed and breakfast, or other small tourism establishment.

- Other cities and regions in Canada are much better known as tourist destinations ( vis.: Toronto, Vancouver, Niagara Falls)

- other cities and regions are actively preparing for when the flood-gates open that is when ADS is in operation.

The time is of the essence for doing something so that we don’t lose out

As the saying goes "You snooze - You lose"

To give you an idea of what is involved:

- In 2006, 28.8 million Chinese tourists travelled abroad,

- a 17% increase in this number is expected for 2007

- It is estimated that by the year 2020 there will be 100 million Chinese tourists travelling abroad.

- The vast majority of Visitor Visas issued by Canada Immigration are for business, student and family, not "tourist’

- only 139,000 visited Canada in 2006,

The reason given by the Canadian Immigration Officials, in my experience, generally is the risk that they won’t return to China.

The official reason is that the Visa Official is not satisfied that they have sufficient connection to China to motivate them to return.

- With ADS Australia saw its numbers of visitors from China increase from 93,000 in 1999 to 309,000 in 2006.

- In 2004 the European Union was granted Ads

- In 2006 France has reported a boom in tourist arrivals from China, to the tune of 820,000

- They estimate that the Chinese spend an average of $3,000 per day in Paris. Of course, we`re not Paris, but then who is?

- Surveys have indicated that ease of obtaining a Visitor Visa is the third most important factor for China, after clean environment and safety

and,

- 95% feel that ease of getting a Visitor Visa is important

We have the environment

We have the safety

That just leaves the ease of getting a Visa

So, ADS is not nothing.

One part of the solution is political.

Let our representatives know that it is time for action. This is on two fronts:

- finalizing the ADS

- solving the Visitor Visa issue.

These of course are related

The way things look now is that once we have ADS the Big Tourism companies will be licensed and be able to get Visitor Visa’s for their tours. Others won’t. This, of course, by itself will be enough to shut out the small business in Vancouver Island

Another part of the solution is, "Organization".

A single small company on Vancouver Island may not have the resources or wherewithal to tap into the China market, even of the people they are contacting can get Visitor Visa’s.

target sector

Also, the target sector is important. Whereas the big tour companies may target the "economy class" and base their profits on volume

The way to go as far as I am concerned is targeting the middle class of people who have recently arrived at the situation where they have disposable income and want to take holidays and do something different, exciting and which they can brag about when they return home.

There are a number of advantages in this Approach

- People in this target group are not likely to "go underground" once they arrive in Canada since, in my experience, they don’t want to live here anyway - they are far too successful and enjoy the good life in China to give it all up. In fact normally after being here for a couple of week they want to get back.

So, this should make it easier to get Visitor Visa’s

Their priority is to do interesting and exciting things that their friends haven’t done. Things they can remember and talk about until at least the next trip

Small businesses that provide such unique and individualized experiences to a small number at a time are very well positioned to tap into such a market.

This describes Vancouver Island to a "Vee"

Also, it may be difficult to get people to travel all that way and spend that much money to do one thing, e.g. go fishing.

On the other hand, it may not be so difficult if the tourists are going to do a number of unique and exciting things when they are here.

So, it just makes sense that instead of approaching this individually that the small businesses on Vancouver Island join together.

That`s the purpose of VIVA = "Vancouver Island Ventures" association".

Small businesses involved in tourism on The Island will be able to provide us with information on what they have to offer.

We will make this database available to tourism companies who will make up "designer packages" aimed at the middle to upper middle income earners with disposable income and whose only desire is to do something interesting and different on their vacation and be able to go home and brag about it.

We are starting with China, but this will work for India and any other country as well.

We are still at the developmental stages but with Approved Destination Status inevitable and with the Winter Olympics coming up we do not want to linger any longer.

As The saying goes "You snooze - You Lose"

Organizing has the added advantage of demonstrating to the various levels of government that the small businesses involved with tourism are serious about this issue.

In order for a project like this to work you need people who are familiar with China, dealing with Chinese and the tourism industry both in China and Canada.

As mentioned I have been practising Immigration law for over 17 year, during almost all of this time has included people from China.

Also, my wife is from China and taught at a tourism school there before she came to Canada.

She also has a diploma in Travel and Tourism from Seneca College in Toronto

India is in a very similar situation to China, with a quickly developing economy and middle class with disposable income. It is also very difficult to get Visitor Visas.

Anyone interested in participating in our organization may contact me at:

lloyd-live@cicblog.com

Next Thursday (May 22 at 7:00pm)

Employment: "All the Right Stuff"

21. Harper government ceasing CAIRS “Coordination of Access to Information Requests System"

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:54:00 +0000

Discussion on:
“Coordination of Access to Information Requests System" ( CAIRS )
and the Stephen Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights and Harper's latest anfractuous assault; the suggestion that Stephane Dion "fight the good fight"; a discussion of Jack Layton policy of 'vote lending' and suggesting he has put political self-interest ahead of the good of our great nation and recommending NDP lend Liberals their vote; and, an update on "Sun Tsu says fight" (Episode 20), "Holy 'Good Con, Bad Con'" (Episode 19), "Holy Obscuration and Obstruction," (Episode 18), "Holy 'Good Con, Bad Con'" (Episode 17) and "Great Covens of Right Wing Idealogues" (Episode 16).

. . .

Previously (episode 18) Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights;

and, the suggestion that Stephane Dion pick up the torch of ‘freedom of information’.

However, shocking information has just reached them regarding new, extreme measures implemented by Harper and the Conservatives to further curtain transparency in government and the free flow of information.

Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave . . .

Robin: Holy Revelations, this is beyond comprehension, Batman.

Batman: What’s that, Robin, don’t tell me Harper and the Conservatives have taken more steps to limit our rights and freedoms.

Robin: That’s right, Batman - lucky guess. I can hardly believe what I am reading.

Batman: Educated guess. Read on MacDuff, ... err, Robin.

Robin: It appears Harper and his Conservative Government have “kill access to information database” (CBC, 2 May ‘08).

Batman: You mean the “Coordination of Access to Information Requests System" ( CAIRS ) - the data base containing almost all the access to information requests that have been submitted over the years and which is freely accessible to all, including researchers, media and the general public. Surely you can't be serious.

Robin: I am serious, Batman, . . . and don't call me Shirley.

Batman: What possible excuse can they give, Robin, for killing something that is so useful to so many people and is a basic tool to keep the government transparent and accountable.

Robin: Apparently it wasn't valued by government departments and the "valuable resources currently being used to maintain CAIRS would be better used in the collection and analysis of improved statistical reporting," (CBC article, above).

Batman: Certainly, Robin, maintaining the access to information database cannot be that costly, especially considering its usefulness and importance to an open and free democracy. If anything they should be putting it "on-line". To quote Mr. Justice LaForest of the Supreme Court of Canada (in the Dagg decision)

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation--is to facilitate democracy. . . . It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry."

Robin: Holy Regressive, Conservative Right Wing Ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct", Batman. What's really going on.

Batman: Who knows what is lurking in the hearts of Harper and the Conservatives, Robin. We should all ask ourselves: “is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours”;

Robin: Holy Enlightenment, Batman, didn’t Harper and the Con. Party run on clarity and transparency in the last election
Batman: That’s my recollection too, Robin, and Harper and the Con. Party’s style of government is becoming much more transparent and their Hidden Agenda much clearer.

Robin: What about Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party. Certainly they will champion the cause of freedom and democracy.

Batman: Based on his past actions we cannot simply assume he will pick up the banner and “fight the good fight” for our futures and for our children.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Apparently Dion is too pre-occupied with being elected. However, in delaying he may find himself in a hole too deep to dig himself out of. The strange thing is, that at the end of the day he may very well be elected despite himself. Since, how else can we extricate ourselves.

Robin: How so, Batman.

Batman: Harper and the Con. Party have a small minority and very small percentage of people voted for them in the last election. Presumably the voting was spread out amongst the four major parties because the Canadian voters didn’t mind giving Harper a chance and

see what they could do. With this and the many other actions that Harper has taken to dismantle our way of life, the Canadian people may see much clearer what Harper is all about and decide we cannot afford to remain so polarized in our voting. To so do, the Liberal Party is the only real choice.

Robin: But what about Layton

and the NDP. Surely Layton could recommend to the NDP supporters that they lend the Liberals their vote in the up-coming election. After all, he is a strong proponent of such policies ... or, at least he used to be. Wasn’t he the one who said “friends, Liberals, country persons, lend me your vote”

Batman: Something like that, Robin, although perhaps not quite so articulate. Evidently Layton is too pre-occupied with his dream of power thru supplanting the Liberal Party to join together in a common cause for the good of all of Canada. And of course, in so doing, may very well be the basis of another Harper victory.

Robin: Holy Ironies, Batman. But, Dion does not seem to be considered a strong leader.

Batman: Good leadership, Robin, in a modern, democratic, economically developed society is not one person imposing his/her will on all the rest. Good leadership refers to the whole and not one part.

The Liberal Party has many fine members, something in which the Con. Party evidently is seriously lacking. This is referred to in hockey as “Depth”. In fact, apparently, the Conservative Party’s Lack of depth is so bad that once in power Harper immediately put muzzles on all his Ministers which have remained to this day.

Many consider this to be a shrewd, if not somewhat Machiavellian, political move. This, of course, may be another reason for restricting the free flow of information regarding the Harper and the Con. government.
Robin: Great Ineptitude, Batman, you mean in addition to Harper and the Con. Party trying to keep

their extreme Right Wing Hidden Agenda, hidden they are trying to cover up their lack of talent.

Batman: It appears things are becoming much clearer for you too, Robin.

Robin: But, it may very well be too late to undo the damage done. What can we do, Batman.

Batman: I don’t know. Perhaps we will have no choice but to look elsewhere for a Champion. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 4 May, 2008-05-04

- In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:23:00 +0000

My comments, submitted 1 May ’08, to: Courier Islander (Campbell River)
Regarding:

“Tories making matters worse”
Courier-Islander (Campbell River)
Wed 30 Apr 2008
Page: A12
Section: Opinion
Byline: Paul Willcocks
Column: BC
Source: Courier-Islander

I was the Liberal candidate for Nanaimo-Cowichan in ’04 and I am not sure that I can agree with Paul Willcocks, when he writes “Here on Vancouver Island, the Nanaimo-Cowichan Conservatives complained they were made to pay for advertising that hurt their effort. The ads, directed at a national audience, attacked the Liberals. The local Conservatives' main opponent was New Democrat incumbent Jean Crowder. The attacks, by discouraging Liberal votes, might have helped Crowder to victory.” [emphasis added]. Although it is a bit ambiguous whether he is reporting what the local Conservatives are claiming or making a suggestion.

A review of the election results as found on Elections Canada Website show that for ’97, 2000, ’04 and ’06 the number of people voting Liberal is almost the same (10663, 10857, 9257 & 9352, respectively). These numbers are hardly supportive of such an assertion.

Below are two comments on the In-and-Out Election Finance Scheme I posted to my Web Blog on 29 Apr’08 & 25 Apr.’08

Lloyd MacIlquham

- In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme - "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:41:00 +0000

I Submitted this to MacLean’s Magazine, 29 Apr.’08

Reply to: Local campaigns are largely a fiction anyway - For all the opposition hyperventilating, it's not clear the Tories did anything wrong, by Andrew Coyne, 23 Apr. '08; http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20080423_16408_16408&id=8

"Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"

It seems to me that “Democracy” is, by its very meaning, ‘grass roots’. Party politics is a form of “oligarchy“ but a necessary evil, in large part dues to finances. The intention in an election is that the locally elected candidate's duty and obligation is to represent each and every individual in their constituency, no matter which candidate they may have supported. In reality when they get to Ottawa they follow 'party lines ', where it is in the best interests of their constituency, or not. Party lines are determined by the leader, and a very few of his/her appointed advisors, the leader, of course, being elected by the party and not the people. The biggest fiction is when the Primed Minister or Ministers introduce a policy that is riddled with self interest, promoting their particular ideology and with a blatant disregard of the general good, and they say "it is the will of the people".

Surely, it is the above fantasy that ought to be addressed. The Canada Elections Act is a major tool to bring our way of government back to the people (more free votes, less confidence votes, would help, too). It is done, for one, through regulating campaign expenses.

The In-and-Out financing scheme appears to fly in the face of this and in so doing undermines the democratic underpinning of our political system. Can we say that this scheme lies within Parliament 's intention in bring into force the Canada Elections Act.

By s.407(1), Canada Elections Act, a cost incurred is a "campaign expense" if it is "used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period " [to paraphrase]. It may be that this allows a local campaign to buy advertising that supports the national campaign; but, no matter what, it must be done "directly". In other words, it is submitted that a local campaign may very well be prohibited from claiming something as an election expense when it is transferred to and spent by the national party campaign, whether the nation campaign uses it to purchase national advertising, local advertising or anything else. I fail to see how s.446(c) might come into play here to save the In-and-Out scheme since it is, it seems to me, referring to whether someone who has provided services or goods can sue the local candidate if there is nothing in writing. It is also referring to "expense in relation to a candidate’s electoral campaign" and not "campaign expenses", which as suggested above has that "directness" element.

And, of course, if the local campaign submits invoices addressed to their local campaign for these ads to support their claim to the 60% rebate from the Canadian government for election expenses, then, that is something that Elections Canada may very well be interested in.

If s.407(1) allows local campaigns to incur costs for the national campaign, and as far as I am concerned this is shortcoming of the Canada Elections Act – a piece of legislation that was apparently hurridly brought into law and in parts appears to be poorly drafted, then I have no problem with Elections Canada insisting on them doing it according to the law.

I posted the following (below) in reply to Ottawa Citizen, "The Tories might have a point ... ", John Robson, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, April 25, 2008.
(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f90d651c-4589-4dfc-8e20-23cfcf6de0bf&p=2#commentsFormTitle)

(it can be found on my website: http://www.cicblog.com/comments.html, "In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme "

. . . see below

20. Sun Tsu says fight, Robin

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:39:00 +0000

Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" as well as the IN-and-Out (In-Out) election finance scheme.

Now, they are discussing Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party not being founded on the “Rule of Law” and what can be done to thwart there actions.

Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave . . .
Robin: Holy Hidden Agendas, this is beyond comprehension, Batman.

Batman: What’s that, Robin, don’t tell me the Joker is running for mayor, again.

Robin: If only, Batman, this is something much more insidious.

Batman: More insidious that the Joker, Robin, what could that be.

Robin: It appears Harper and his Conservative Government has included fundamental and far reaching changes to the Immigration legislation in their Budget Implementation Bill.

Batman: That’s correct, Robin, but it goes much further than that.

These changes give the Minister of Immigration the power to pick and choose, at her own discretion, who will be allowed into Canada and who will be refused. This, of course, means, given the very tight control over his Ministers, that, in reality, it would be at the discretion of Stephen Harper, himself.

This new selection process would apply even where the people affected meet the requirements, whether they have already submitted their applications and no matter how long they have been waiting to have that application processed. This is achieved with the simple changing of one word in the legislation from

[to paraphrase] if they meet the requirements they "shall" be issued a visa to they "may" be issued a visa - "may" being at the discretion of the Minister.

Robin: Holy "Too Clever by Half", Batman, what`s that have to do with the Budget.

Batman: Once again, a very good question, Robin. Many people are asking themselves the same thing. It appears the only thing it has to do with the Budget is that Dion had indicated that he was not prepared to vote down the Budget and if Harper had introduced these changes to the Immigration legislation in a

separate piece of legislation, it would have achieved very little more than embarrassing him and his party.

Robin: Holy Despots, Batman, what is Harper and the Con.`s excuse this time.

Batman: It seems, Robin, Harper is trying to excuse it by saying that something must be done about the backlog, which they blame on the Liberals while in office.
Robin: Great Caesar`s Ghost, Batman, is Harper still harping on that. When is Harper and the Conservative Party going to stand up and be judged for what they are.

Batman: Holy Lack of Leadership, Robin, [oophs, I did it again] certainly that is a hallmark of leadership. Presumably in the election they may very well be required to be accountable and transparent regarding their actions.

Robin: Great Covens of Right Wing Extremists, Batman,

certainly there must be other, more moderate, ways to deal with the backlog than simply kick out people who qualify and have been waiting, or make them wait even longer. After all, what did they do to deserve such treatment, I mean other than trust that Canada would treat them fairly and with dignity and respect.

Batman: Yes, Robin, it certainly might make the International Community of Nations shake their heads in shock and disbelief. This may very well be seen not to fall within Canada’s fine traditions of fair play and honourable behaviour.

Robin: Wouldn`t allotting sufficiently more money to processing the applications and changing how the applications are processed be the obvious answer, and one which many have suggested.

Batman: That does seem transparent, Robin, and allotting

sufficiently more funds to deal with the backlog has the added benefit of being something that might actually belong in the Budget.

Robin: Holy Simpliciter, Batman, so why doesn`t Harper do just that.

Batman: Who knows what lies in the hearts of men, Robin.

Robin: Holy duplicity, Batman, wasn't it Stephen Harper who promised increased transparency in government in the last election, Batman.

Batman: That’s my recollection as well, Robin, and now we are seeing what Harper and the Con.’s are really all about, and with greater clarity.

Robin: Holy “Banana Republics”, Batman, do we really want this kind of government. Batman: Not I, Robin. And,

perhaps all the fair minded people throughout Canada should ask themselves “ is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours ”, and so doing, join together in a common cause to put this proud nation of ours back on its true course.

After all, Harper and the Conservatives were only supported by a very small minority in the last election and I think it may be not unreasonable to suggest that amongst those who voted against Harper in the last election very few would approve of these actions.

Robin: Holy Lack of Oversight, Batman, it seems that the proposed changes take our Immigration system, which has always so important to the vitality of our great nation, outside the "Rule of Law".

Batman: Yes, Robin, it specifically takes it outside the "Rule Of Law" in that even if applicants

meet the requirements of Immigration legislation they it is only that they "may" be issued a visa and not "shall", as the legislation now directs. In other words, the law no longer rules it is the Minister, herself.

Robin: But, Batman, doesn't that

put the Minister above the law - et tu, Harper.
Batman: "Ergo, Harper", is more appropriate, Robin, . . . I think. Effectively, yes, Robin, she will be able to pick and choose amongst those that apply at her own discretion and without having to abide by any laws, policies, or whatever. This is

despite how qualified they are and how long they have been waiting since they applied.
Robin: Surely Parliament won't support it and since Harper only has a small minority they would not likely pass it.
Batman:That, Robin, appears to be why Harper and the Con.'s have tacked it onto the Budget Implementation Bill.

Robin: This does appear more insidious than the Joker becoming mayor.

Batman: Yes, Robin. But it gets much worse than this.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: It appears Harper and the Conservatives are playing fast and loose with our laws in other areas as well.

Robin: Say it isn't true, Batman.
Batman: No Can Do, Robin. They have also buried into the same legislation changes to the film and video tax credit program that would apparently allow the government to cancel tax credits after it is made if deemed offensive to the public.

Robin: Holy “Insidious Implementation of Extremist, Conservative, Ideology”, Batman, it sounds like good, old censorship to me, Batman. Doesn't that also make investing in and producing films more uncertain.
Batman: Not if you conform to Harper and the Con's view of what should be censored, Robin.

Robin: Immigration and censorship, they're beyond belief, Batman. Given their stance on abortion, I'm surprised Harper and the Conservative Party haven’t tried to criminalize abortion in some anfractuous fashion.
Batman: Funny, or not so funny, you should say that, Robin. As a

matter of fact Harper is amending the Criminal Code (Bill C-484) which many consider a back door attempt to recriminalize abortion (Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists - see: Montreal Gazette, 16 Apr.’08). Whether you feel abortions should not be legal, the manner in which they are doing this should gives rise to concern.

Robin: Great ethical and moral struggles, Batman, you mean, the end doesn’t justify the means.
Batman: Precisely, Robin. If the will of the Canadian people is to recriminalize abortion then it should be done thru “informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all” and not “the back-door”.

Robin: But doesn’t our Charter of Rights declare that Canada is founded on the “Rule of Law”, Batman.

Batman: You’re absolutely right, Robin. But that doesn’t mean Harper and the Conservative Party are founded on the “Rule of Law”.

The Minister of Immigration has indicated that the Charter will not be violated. However, it is not at all clear, to me anyway, that the Charter applies to the people applying for immigration, where they are neither Canadian citizens, nor permanent resident, nor on Canadian soil. So, when s.15(1), Charter, states

that “every individual is equal before and under the law” and has the right to equal benefit without discrimination based race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, it is not at all clear that “every individual” applies to everyone in the world, no matter where they live and their status vis-a-vis Canada.

Robin: Holy "regression to the Dark Ages", Batman, it seems that Harper and the Conservative government could restrict Immigration from visible minority countries in favour of those from Western countries. And, Harper doesn’t even need to apply the "Opting Out Clause". Can they do this.

Batman: The question, Robin, is, “Can we stop them”. Also, with such extreme, discretionary power, it could prove very difficult to have the Minister's decisions overturned in Court.

Robin: But how can Harper and the Con.'s justify this and putting it into the Budget Implementation Bill,

thus avoiding "informed, open and transparent discussion".

Batman: I don't know, Robin. It is very difficult to see how granting the Minister of Immigration such sweeping, arbitrary powers has anything to do with the budget. It is much more readily explained as abusing the Parliamentary System to

implement legislation that allows Harper to gradually and thru stealth implement his extreme, right wing agenda regarding immigration, censorship and abortion and through an assault on the fundamental basis of the Charter of Rights, which, if I recall from the last election, has been a serious concern about a Harper government.

Robin: Haper and the Conservative Party have a minority government, quite small at that. What about the other Parties, surely there is something they can do.
Batman: Well, Robin, for one they could join together in a common cause to save this great nation of ours, and ask the Governor General to allow them to form the government.

Robin: Holly “Better Chance of Being Struck By Lightning Three Times”, Batman.

Batman: So it appears, Robin. They could introduce Private Members Bills to bring back accountability and the rule of law to Immigration, censorship, et al. Such Bills would

not be money Bills and so not automatically Confidence Votes. If Harper declares them as Confidence votes he would have a lot of ‘xplianin’ to do to the good people of Canada in the ensuing election.

Robin: Holy “Finally Showing Their True Colours”, Batman.

Certainly this is a good course to take, on the opposing Parties will pick up on.

Batman: We shall see, Robin.

Robin: But what about Stephane Dion , surely rallying the Liberal Party to fight Harper and the Conservatives on this would stop it in its tracks.

Batman: Stephane Dion strategy appears to be to "leave a marker" on these, and other issues, presumably to bring them up during the next election campaign.

Robin: But surely he knows that a tomb stone is a marker as well, Batman.

Batman: Hopefully, Robin, and the hole Dion finds himself in may be too deep to dig himself out of. Sometimes you just got to fight and "damn the torpedoes". There is an ancient Japanese Samurai saying (to paraphrase), if you are in a life or death struggle, choose death.

Robin: Certainly, you're

not suggesting that Dion choose to lose the next election, Batman.

Batman: No, Robin. The Samurai were mongst the fiercest warriors the world has ever seen. They did not fight to lose. By 'choosing death' the Samurai freed themself from the emotional drag of

concerns for their own personal safety and freed their spirit to fight. If Dion decides to fight Liberals throughout this fair land of ours may join the fray.

Robin: What about Sun Tzu’s saying that you should not engage the enemy unless you are assured of winning.

Batman: Sun Tsu was indeed a great military commander. However, I suggest that "Sun Tsu says fight", Robin. Dion has already been engaged by Harper and the Conservatives.

Dion does not have the luxury of making that choice. This is perhaps the fundamental error in his assessment.

Robin: Holy "Stand Up and be Counted", Batman, will the universe unfold as it should.

Batman: I don't know, Robin. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 28 April, 2008-04-28

- In-and-Out Election Finances Scheme

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:36:00 +0000

I posted the following (below) in reply to Ottawa Citizen, "The Tories might have a point ... ", John Robson, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, April 25, 2008.
(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f90d651c-4589-4dfc-8e20-23cfcf6de0bf&p=2#commentsFormTitle)

It seems to me that first:

- "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (to borrow a fundamental truism).

- also, implementing an interpretation was Conrad Black’s undoing

- as you also suggested it may depend on how it was implemented

This interpretation does in my opinion, effectively, give the Conservatives a huge advantage:

In the last election the Conservative Party won 124 seats and lost 184 seats, a majority being 153. In the next election there may be well over 100 seats that can be considered a write off for the Conservatives.

The spending limit is approx. $80,000. If such local campaign is ordered to spend no more than, say, $20,000 themselves and engage in the "In and Out" scheme for the balance, that makes an additional $6 million above the spending limit of approximately $18 million on the national campaign, all of which would be

directed towards national advertising. Given that the Conservative Party is raising much more in funds than any of the other parties, this could give them a huge advantage and could very well have an impact on the results. Also, the local Conservative Party campaign would receive additional Canadian tax dollars of $36,000.00.

That would be a total of $3.6 million overall of our tax dollars. And, these are very conservative estimates. “David Dunne, a marketing professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said it's tough to measure the money's impact on the final results. Still, he said extra funds will boost an advertising campaign's visibility, and increase its chance of success. ‘In a political campaign, frequency is very important,’ he said." (G&M, “Spending to Win”, 23 Apr.’08)

Please refer to my Youtube posting:
“Holy "Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman !”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNu_BQvlPHA

Also, a quick review of the Canada Elections Act, it seems to me (and this is not a legal opinion and a more in depth analysis could result in a different conclusion) - I have set out the provisions I am referring to below:

If the meaning of “individual” includes “person”. Then, it is submitted, a candidate is an individual and so s.405.3. Of course, s.405.2 applies.

My understanding is that the funds to the Candidate were transfers and not contributions, and so not caught by 405(1). The same goes for the funds from the Candidate to the Party, and so not to be caught by s.405(1) or 405.3, above.

If they are transfers of funds then how can the candidate claim it as an election expense which, apparently, must be used to “directly“ promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate. It may be that the National campaign used the transferred funds to purchased ads, but can it be said that it was used by the candidate to “directly“ promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate.

If the candidate purchased the ads directly and not transferred the funds to the Party, it is possible the above does not apply.

Also, if it is not an election expense then can the candidate legally claim it and get the 60% rebated.

On the other hand, it if a candidate submitted an invoice for the ads that indicated it was a “direct“ campaign expenditure, Elections Canada may very well want to look at it more closely.

It seems to me that “directly“ is very important, as can be seen above, and seems to be left out of your analysis.

If what you suggest is true, then what is stopping individuals from contributing their limit to the candidate knowing that the funds will be transferred to the Party for spending on National advertising that is attributed to the candidate, with the candidate getting the 60% rebate. The individual might then also contribute their limit to the Party directly.

As with Ken Drydan, I would be very surprised if this was the intention of the Canada Elections Act and could lead to very unlevel playing field, throwing the results into serious question.

***********

"candidate" means a person whose nomination as a candidate at an election has been confirmed under subsection 71(1) and who, or whose official agent, has not complied with sections 451 to 463 and 471 to 475 in respect of that election.

404(2.1) A transfer of funds is permitted and is not a contribution for the purposes of this Act if it is
(a) from a registered party to an electoral district association of the party;

(b) from a registered association to the party with which it is affiliated or another registered association of the party;

(c) from a candidate endorsed by a registered party to the party or a registered association of the party; or

(d) from a candidate to himself or herself in his or her capacity as a nomination contestant in respect of the same election.

Exclusion for funds other than trust funds — registered parties and registered associations

(2.2) A transfer of funds, other than trust funds, is permitted and is not a contribution for the purposes of this Act if it is
(a) from a registered party to a candidate endorsed by the party; or

(b) from a registered association to a candidate endorsed by the party with which the association is affiliated.

405. (1) No individual shall make contributions that exceed

(a) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party;

(a.1) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party;

(b) $1,000 in total to a candidate for a particular election who is not the candidate of a registered party; and

(c) $1,000 in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.

405.2 (1) No person or entity shall

(a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the prohibition under subsection 404(1) or a limit set out in subsection 405(1) or section 405.31; or

(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose

. . .

405.3 No individual shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate or a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant that comes from money, property or the services of any person or entity that was provided to that individual for that purpose.

406. An electoral campaign expense of a candidate is an expense reasonably incurred as an incidence of the election, including

(a) an election expense;

(b) a personal expense; and

(c) any fees of the candidate’s auditor, and any costs incurred for a recount of votes cast in the candidate’s electoral district, that have not been reimbursed by the Receiver General.

Election expenses

407. (1) An election expense includes any cost incurred, or non-monetary contribution received, by a registered party or a candidate, to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred, or the non-monetary contribution received, is used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period.

Exclusions — certain fund-raising and nominations

(2) Expenses for a fund-raising activity and expenses to directly promote the nomination of a person as a candidate or as leader of a registered party, other than expenses referred to in paragraph (3)(a) that are related to such fund-raising and promotional activities, are not election expenses under subsection (1).
Inclusions

(3) An election expense referred to in subsection (1) includes a cost incurred for, or a non-monetary contribution in relation to,
(a) the production of advertising or promotional material and its distribution, broadcast or publication in any media or by any other means;

(b) the payment of remuneration and expenses to or on behalf of a person for their services as an official agent, registered agent or in any other capacity;

(c) securing a meeting space or the supply of light refreshments at meetings;

(d) any product or service provided by a government, a Crown corporation or any other public agency; and

(e) the conduct of election surveys or other surveys or research during an election period.

Definition of “cost incurred”

(4) In subsection (1), "cost incurred" means an expense that is incurred by a registered party or a candidate, whether it is paid or unpaid.

19. Holy "Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman !

noreply@blogger.com (wlloydm) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:34:00 +0000

19. Holy " Good Con , Bad Con ", Batman ! -
Last time Batman and Robin were discussing the Harper regressive, conservative right wing ideology of "Obscure and Obstruct" in the curtailment of access to information and its impact on our civil and human rights.
Meanwhile back in the Bat Cave, Batman and Robin are enjoying a leisurely breakfast, reading the local newspaper.

Robin: Holy revelations , Batman, what’s this I read about Elections Canada searching the Conservative party’s headquarters.
Batman: That’s right Robin, it is, apparently, regarding the Conservative Party’s spending policies during the last election on advertising, whether they nationally spent above their limit and whether certain local campaigns claimed campaign expenses for advertising in contravention of the Elections Act.
All this to the tune of over 1 million dollars.

Robin: That’s a lot of money, Batman, this sounds quite serious.
Batman: Your right, Robin, it is serious not simply because of the scale but also, as some of the opposition are pointing out,
given the closeness of the election, spending an extra million dollars on national advertising in a national campaign could, possibly, have had an impact on the outcome. Although they also point out that this could be hard to establish. However, Robin, we may have to wait until we see the results of the search.
What we can infer, however, is that Elections Canada, reputed by many around the world as an icon of integrity and stalwart upholder of democracy, is taking it very seriously.

Robin: Certainly in the case of something so fundamental to our way of life as electing the Prime Minister and ruling party,
it is not whether it can be proved to have had an impact, but whether there is more than a mere possibility it had an impact.

Batman: That’s right, Robin. "Fair Elections should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (to borrow a fundamental truism).
In the last election the Conservative Party won 124 seats and lost 184 seats, a majority being 153. In the next election there may be well over 100 seats that can be considered a write off for the Conservatives.
The spending limit is approx. $80,000. If such local campaign is ordered to spend no more than, say, $20,000 themselves and engage in the "In and Out" scheme for the balance, that makes an additional $6 million above the spending limit of approximately $18 million on the national campaign, all of which would be
directed towards national advertising. Given that the Conservative Party is raising much more in funds than any of the other parties, this could give them a huge advantage and could very well have an impact on the results. Also, the local Conservative Party campaign would receive additional Canadian tax dollars of $36,000.00.
That would be a total of $3.6 million overall of our tax dollars. And, these are very conservative estimates. “David Dunne, a marketing professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said it's tough to measure the money's impact on the final results. Still, he said extra funds will boost an
advertising campaign's visibility, and increase its chance of success. ‘In a political campaign, frequency is very important,’ he said." (G&M, “Spending to Win”, 23 Apr.’08)

Robin: Great Loop Holes, Batman, wasn't Conrad Black's undoing based on implementing an interpretation.
Batman: So say some, Robin, and sometimes it depends on how it is implemented as well. This may be part of the basis for Elections Canada’s very unusual and extreme actions.

Robin: Holy Banana Republics, Batman, surely the Conservatives have an explanation.
Batman: It seems their position is that what they did was a legal interpretation of the Elections Act and they have been up front about it all. They are apparently claiming the Liberal Party and other parties do the same thing. They also seem to be accusing Elections Canada of having a vendetta against Harper and the Conservative
Party; and, further, seem to be claiming that Elections Canada has a bias towards the Liberal Party since they didn't investigate them for the Sponsorship scandal.

Robin: Great Caesar`s ghost, Batman, are the Conservatives still Harping on that Batman.
Batman: It seems so, Robin. It must be kept in mind that being investigated does not in itself mean you are guilty. However, certainly with something so important as electing our Prime Minister, one might expect that the Conservative Party would welcome such investigation and do everything to avoid making such accusations which may give the
impression of trying to obscure and obstruct. This is especially if they are firm in their conviction that what they have done is within the law; and especially since Harper is the Prime Minister. Otherwise, are we any better than the so called "Banana Republics".
Robin: When is Harper and the Conservative Party going to cease their standard ploy of “obstructing and obscuring”, or as the G&M (2 Apr.’08, “From stridency to distractions”) has referred to it "a dizzying array of rhetorical devices", and stand up to be judged on their own actions.
Batman: Holy Lack of Leadership, Robin, [oophs] certainly that is a hallmark of leadership. Presumably in the election they may very well be required to be accountable and transparent regarding their actions.
Robin: Great Pink Slips, Batman, perhaps the Election Commissioner's days in office are numbered.

Batman: Perhaps, Robin, that may be well within Harper's capabilities. But, perhaps Harper and the Conservative party's days in office are numbered.
Robin: Holy Proof is in the Pudding, Batman, surely if the Conservatives are so sure about the correctness of their scheme, they can demonstrate it by using it again in the next election. In fact, maybe they could call an election themselves right now.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, but with the fixed election date it may be that that would be tantamount to acknowledging a lack of confidence by the Canadian people.
Robin: Holy Show Good Faith, Batman, what can they do to demonstrate to the Canadian people their bona fides and confidence in their position.
Batman: Well Robin, Harper could, for one, go in front of the good people of Canada right now and make an unequivocal and clear statement that he and the Conservative Party will employ the exact same scheme in the next election. Certainly not doing so could raise doubts about the firmness of their convictions. It may be that their
interpretation is allowed, after all, and if so, certainly such a statement now would show leadership.
Robin: Holy Back Peddling, Batman, didn’t Harper do just the opposite yesterday, when he said if the official interpretation of the law changes then the Tories will adapt. (CTV, 22 Apr.’08, “Harper says Tories
followed spending rules”).
Batman: Apparently, Robin. We can let the people of Canada decide how solid is Harper’s conviction that their position is correct. On the other hand, it seems, we have a number of top Conservatives applying all these dizzying defenses. Perhaps this is just another “obscure and obstruct” ploy.
After all, Harper's M.O. is tight control, its hard to see this not being a very closely coordinated media blitz.

Robin: Holy Good Con – Bad Con , Batman. Didn't we see this with Flaherty's media assault on Ontario.

Batman: Evidently, Robin.
Robin: Perhaps Dion could force an election. Surely, he might find that in an election people all across this fair land asking themselves, as apparently some already are,
“is this the type of government we want for this great nation of ours”, and so doing, join together in a common cause. After all, Harper and the Conservatives were only supported by a very small minority in the last election and now we are seeing what they are really all about with greater clarity.
Batman: You may have a point, Robin. Harper did run on clarity and things are becoming much clearer.

Robin: Holy Ground Swell, but Dion might not be considered a good leader.

Batman: Robin, the Liberal Party has many fine members
Good leadership in a modern, democratic, economically developed society is not one person imposing his/her will on all the rest. Good leadership refers to the whole and not one part. It may seem that Dion may become Prime Minister despite himself, but it is the Liberal Party that would lead our great nation.
Robin: It would seem that Harper has missed this entirely.

Batman: Or, perhaps, Harper is finding it lonely at the top.

Robin: But, what about the Liberal Party support for Dion.
Batman: Good question, Robin. Perhaps it is time for all Liberals to join together to support Dion. Perhaps that is the signal he is waiting for.

Robin: But how, Batman, can he be convinced of this.
Batman: Perhaps, Robin, the Liberal Party could join together to assist Dion in retiring his debt from the leadership race. This might demonstrate to the people of Canada just what it means to be a Liberal and that they are a united, committed party very much capable to lead. It might also free him of a distracting concern.
Robin: What can we do about the damage to our country and way of life caused by Harper and the Conservatives being in power.

Batman: Sometimes it is not possible to undo all the damage done. Everyone should keep in mind that who runs this country does matter.
Dion has indicated he may very well undo some of the damage. But, I don't know if all of it can be undone. What I do know is that we've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.

© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 8 January, 2008-04-23