Comments

- Preston, if you really want to restore confidence in Parliament – simple: Get rid of Harper and the Con’s

2009-07-02T08:57:00.000-07:00

Posted to: Globe and Mail, “It's time for a fresh start in Parliament”, 2 July, 2009, Preston Manning
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/its-time-for-a-fresh-start-in-parliament/article1202622/

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament (all aspects, including in Champers and Committee), the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

The legislation that Harper and the Cons have introduced is a hodge-podge intended not to generally promote any ideology, Conservative or otherwise, or address any serious social issues but are self-serving and/or designed for their ‘optics’ no matter how obviously bad they are (e.g., Flaherty ‘Fiscal Update’ last December and the reduction in GST). Clearly, the ‘more’ is not the ‘better’.

You suggest, “some agreement to alter the ‘confidence convention,’ so the only condition on which a government could be defeated in the House would be on an explicit motion of no-confidence moved for that purpose.” Clearly that would entrench Harper that much more, Preston, perhaps that is why you are suggesting it.

- It is the true will of the people that must be expressed.

2009-06-27T08:53:00.000-07:00

Excerpt submitted to: Toronto Star, “Sham-Ocracy: Parliament's Fissures “, 27 June, 2009, James Traves,
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/656838

Our current political situation is the net manifestation of all the forces that are at play, as is the case in any era. It is the inevitable effect of the number, nature and strength of these forces. There is not be meaningful change until these forces are identified and modified, in some cases harnessed, in other cases roped in and curtailed. Past generations have taken on this task, sometimes requiring catastrophic change. Surely it is our tern.

It is clear that one big problem is ‘Party’ politics. It is because the MP’s vote along party lines that gives the leader of the governing party all the power. Our Parliamentary system is based on MP’s representing their constituents. Voting on Party lines runs contrary to this and we can see the effect. This is particularly counterproductive when there is a minority government. Our parliamentary system, in some ways, was set up to have 308 ‘parties’ and not simply 4 or 5. However, this ‘Party’ politics is more the effect than the cause. Also, voting along party lines is not, per se, an ‘evil’. It is when this is done to the exclusion of all else. In other words, the balance has been distorted. This distortion has become increasingly pronounced over my lifetime, paralleling the increase in power and influence of the ‘News’ media since Watergate. Perhaps this is no co-incidence, thus identifying one of this ‘forces’ that has changed and upset the balance.

Another big problem is, of course, Transparency, Access to Information and the underlying force of Freedom of Information generally. Clearly this is one of the forces that must be strengthened and with easily predictable results. As I have suggested on numerous occasions, Freedom of Information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Travers suggests that what Canada needs is a White Knight to champion the cause of Democracy. Certainly we need someone to fight, head-to-head and toe-to-toe the Black Knight, Steven Harper, but the change that is required will not likely come from ‘within’ the current political system. It is the true will of the people that must be expressed. Ironically, the ‘News’ media could play a very significant, and constructive role, if it so chose.

- ‘What If’ Harper and the Cons were to get a majority. All I can say is “then God Save Canada”

2009-06-25T08:23:00.001-07:00

Excerpt submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Canadians are victims of a con game”, 26 June, 2009, James Travers

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?

- Tom, If it gets rid of Harper and the Cons then, even if it is another minority government, an election would be anything but ‘pointless’.

2009-06-22T09:42:00.000-07:00

Posted to: Globe and Mail, Comments by Tom Flanagan, Monday, Jun. 22, 2009 09:57AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coming-to-terms-with-minority-government/article1190248/

The only people that could benefit by downplaying this very serious political crisis are those that are in power, Harper and the Cons. As long as they are in power an election is ‘pointless’. Perhaps, this is why people like Tom Flanagan are referring to it as “pointless election”.

If Harper and the Cons were the Official Opposition, you can be sure they he, and they, would be yelling and screaming and obstructing and attacking and demanding an election like there was no tomorrow. And yes, Harper and the Cons would even walking out in Parliament in protest.

Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.

Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.

With power concentrated in the hands of the Executive i.e. the Prime Minster, what Parliamentary constellation appears in Canada’s political cosmos is more astrology than astronomy. Unless of course, some catastrophic event occurred like Harper and the Cons got a majority – in which case if God created the Universe, then God save us.

Who is Prime Minister and what Party is in power does make a difference, whether there is a minority or a majority. It makes a huge difference, given the current imbalance of power in favour of the Executive (Prime Minister and governing party) over Parliament, the Senate and the Judiciary. Our parliamentary system was developed over hundreds of years to create a balance to protect our way of life and our freedoms. It is this balance that is being vigorously attacked by Harper and the Cons – e.g. dissolution of Parliament last December and his call-to-arms of his loyal supporters with his deliberately misleading and erroneous allegations on the workings of our Parliamentary System and those upholding it.

Fortunately, we still have elections (at least every four years … I think … we’ll have to see what Harper has in mind when the time comes).

- The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise

2009-06-19T07:56:00.000-07:00

Posted (excerpts) to:

20 June:
Saturday's Globe and Mail, Friday, Jun. 19, 2009 07:36PM EDT, Brian Laghi
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/shouldnt-this-man-be-smiling/article1190197/

19 June: Ottawa Citzen:
Ottawa Citzen, "The pause that doesn't refresh", 19 June, 2009, Susan Riley
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/pause+that+doesn+refresh/1711009/story.html#PostComment

You have it starkly wrong on Ignatieff’s position and actions this week. Generally, I found your article hard to follow.

The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.

This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card. Unfortunately there is a general feeling against another election right now. Anyone who forces an election right now runs a very serious risk of a voter backlash. If Ignatieff were to do so, there would be a very real risk of a Conservative majority, taking away the only leverage to force any type of bridle on Harper and the Cons in power.

Also, EI is very important and a very good and expedient way of getting money out to stimulate the economy. However, it is far from an ‘election defining issue’. Harper knew this and so did Ignatieff. Essentially Ignatieff leveraged a non-election issue into guarranteed non-confidence votes in the Fall where the battle can be waged on election defining issues, or a build-up of smaller issues, each by themself not sufficient to force an election.

The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.

Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.

Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html

- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.

2009-06-18T08:01:00.000-07:00

Comment on: Toronto Star, Opinion, 18 June, 2009, Bob Hepburn
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/652578

There is no question that Harper and the Cons need to be out’d and that Canada and all Canadians would be far, far better off.

However, I think that the polls accurately reflect the general mood that an election is not wanted right now.

A big consideration is, if Ignatieff calls an election now there may be a voter backlash against the Liberal Party and people might vote Conservative out of spite.

- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.

- Flaherty, lecturing the G8?

2009-06-14T09:32:00.000-07:00

G&M, “Flaherty sees U.S. deficit as biggest threat to recovery”, 14 June, 2009, Eric Reguly

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/flaherty-sees-us-deficit-as-biggest-threat-to-recovery/article1181282/

Flaherty: “All participants realize the need to control public spending and control public involvement in the private sector”.

Sounds like a right-wing ideology to me – except that even before Harper and Flaherty were forced to admit there was a recession they were spending like crazy.

Does anyone really wonder why the stimulus spending hasn’t materialized yet. Clearly, Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are dragging their feet because their extreme right-wing ideology simply does allow for it. It simply doesn’t matter how many people lose their jobs, savings, homes, way of life, because of it – after all that’s what ‘sink-or-swim’ is really all about, isn’t it.

I guess Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are hoping for the recession to end or the US to do the spending for us.

- Cyclical ‘Dictatorship’ – The Harper Rule

2009-06-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

excerpts submitted to:
- Toronto Star, “If Harper fixed his moat would we ever find out?”, 9 Jun.’09, James Travers
- Toronto Star, "Political apathy fuelled by diminishing role of our MPs and a lack of transparency", 21 Jun.'09, Bruce Campion-Smith

Never mind cyclical ‘deficit’. How about a cyclical ‘dictatorship’. Harper seems to think so. Fortunately we must have an election every four year, Harper himself made that law (or do we??? I’m not sure, ask Harper, I’m sure he will be more than willing to tell us, I think, sometime, or not, who knows).

One of the biggest defenses against dictatorial rule is Freedom of Information. This, of course, was one of the first things that Harper attacked, and vigorously, when he took office. It was not inadvertent or ancillary to good government.

What we need is a political leader, and party, to champion transparency, integrity openness in government and freedom of information. Wait a minute, wasn’t ‘transparency’ Stephen Harper and his Con’s battle cry before they got elected.

Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Ignatieff should be implementing his own “Getting tough on Cons” policy (‘Cons’ = ‘The Harper Gang’).

2009-06-06T09:15:00.000-07:00

submitted to: Toronto Star, "Liberal revolt", 5 June.'09, Susan Delacourt
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/06/liberal-revolt.html

If mandatory jail sentences do not reduce the frequency of the crime, then not only is there no point, it is counter-productive. It is very expensive and amounts to little more than a mandatory 2 year stint at Con U (for clarification, here ‘Con U’ refers to ‘Convict’s University’ - i.e. the converting of those convicted into hardened criminals while in prison and their learning how to do it right the next time - and not, say, the Conservative election camp) . Harper and the Cons ought to present the evidence to show that this policy is effective in reducing crime.

Harper and the Con’s mantra is “getting tough on crime”. But, how, exactly is Bill C-15 doing it. It may be getting tough on the criminals – i.e. those who are convicted of committing such crimes. But where is the empirical connection between that and getting tough on ‘crime’. When you consider that the evidence apparently in the US is that these measures don’t work then the onus is even more on Harper and the Cons to produce the underlying evidence in support. Otherwise, one can conclude little more than this is being done for the optics, comparable to reducing the GST by 2%. We all, as Canadians, ought to be demanding this of Harper, and not just Ignatieff and the Liberals. It is a question of integrity.

Clearly in the next election Harper and the Cons will be referring to their “tough on crime” stance and it may be very difficult for Ignatieff to say “where’s the proof” at that time. Ignatieff should be implementing his own “getting tough on Cons” policy and now.

- So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action

2009-06-05T10:37:00.000-07:00

Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Premiers rally behind Harper in fight against Buy American”, 5 June, 2009, Brian Laghi, Campbell Clark, Steven Chase and Barrie Mckenna
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/premiers-rally-behind-harper-in-fight-against-buy-american/article1169850/

t seems to me the ‘buy American provisions’ have been ‘in the news’ since the introduction of the Stimulus package. It does not take specific examples to be able to foresee the huge and terrible economic impact on Canadian companies.

So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action. As suggested in the article by the time Harper gets around to doing anything the money will have been spent.

Harper and the Cons seem to be able to take the initiative and be very fast with their negative and very non-constructive attack ads.

Why is it when it comes to doing anything constructive to benefit Canada during this economic recession Harper and the Cons are in denial and simply drag their feet regarding taking any meaningful action …

It must be Harper’s and the Cons’ extreme right wing ideological agenda.

- Thank God Harper and the Cons don’t have a majority.

2009-06-04T07:53:00.000-07:00

Comment submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Learning the lessons of power”, 4 June, 2009, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/645311

If they did, they would not have to worry about any ‘learning curve’ they would simply commence implementing their extreme right wing ideologically based policies and the ‘Good of Canada be Damned!’.

Now at least they have to take it a bit slower. They also have to do it covertly, which leaves the very undesirable prospect of the Canadian electorate not really having much of a clear idea of what Harper and the Cons are really up to. Hopefully, some of the damage will be reversible when Harper and the Cons are turffed from office.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- If Harper and the Con’s Had Never Taken the Helm of the Good Ship Canada Our Deficit Would be less than 10 billion

2009-06-02T09:24:00.000-07:00

Submitted to Toronto Star, “Tories wield the deficit truncheonTories wield the deficit truncheon”, Linda Mcquaig, 2 June, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/643832#Comments

Title: The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.

Good Point:

The Harper and the Cons' self-serving and ill advised reduction of taxes solely to win votes amounts to $34 billion this year. Add in the huge increases in spending like to the military and other areas.

Conclusion: If Harper and the Cons had never taken office, the deficit would be a mere $10 billion or less.

Unfortunately we can’t just simply reverse the damage Harper and the Cons have done in this area, or any of the other areas.

It is very difficult to increase taxes and this, of course, is part of the Harper strategy – just compare some of the attack ads against Ignatieff (vis.: ‘Ignatieff calls himself a tax and spend Liberal’ – I don’t recall Ignatieff saying that, perhaps Harper can point to the sound bite where he says this). It is also very difficult to roll back spending.

This is why what the Liberals achieved in the ‘90’s – i.e. elimination of the deficit, is so outstanding. And, they will have to do it again.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Ignatieff EI Changes verses Harper Stimulus Package

2009-05-31T11:03:00.000-07:00

abridged version posted to:

G&M, “Wall adds voice to call for EI reform“, 31 May ’09, Bill Curry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wall-adds-voice-to-call-for-ei-reform/article1161074/

The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “the stimulus is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts. In reality Harper doesn’t want to spend the money and has put this equal contribution from the provinces as an excuse.

One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it.

On the other hand, if the Harper government has not yet borrowed the money, and given it would be imprudent to do so without the particular infrastucture, or other project, ready including the provincial contributions, then when it is borrowed just how much greater will the deficit be.

I can only say God help us!

On the other hand the general consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly right to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on all sorts of things and thus stimulate the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.

Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Dunca recently stated (on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers):

"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed," he said on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers.

The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.

Lloyd MacIlquham
****************

5/31/2009 1:57:05 PM
The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts.
_____________________________________________

One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it. If not what will the deficit be when they do.
_____________________________________________

General consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on daily needs, stimulating the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.
_____________________________________________

"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed", Ontario Finance Minsiter
_____________________________________________

The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of the proposed changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim … if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
_____________________________________________

Harper has demonstrated that he and the Cons have no intention of adopting the best policies for Canadians unless he is pushed to the edge and confronted with the real threat of losing power.
_____________________________________________

I can only say, ‘God save us’!

- Poll on Patriotism Probably Skewed by Die Hard Harperites

2009-05-30T10:14:00.000-07:00

Post to G&M, "Harper's a Tims man, but Ignatieff inspires", 30 May '09, Brian Laghi

I think one needs to look at the methodology of a Poll when it indicates that Canadians consider Harper more patriotic, especially considering his general long term plan is to dismantle Federalism and protect Alberta’s interested to the exclusion of the rest of Canada.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

For example, what per centage of those with High School or less education were represented in the poll (this is important since the poll reveals such a wide margin between support in this group in favour of Harper). Also, what per centage of those from Alberta were represented in the poll. What about the wording of the question - if ‘patriotism’ somehow relates back to Alberta, then I can see the result.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

And, of course, there is a significant per centage of the Canadian population that are die hard supporters of Harper and the Cons. Who are not interested in the facts, reality or the good of the Canadian people but blindly support everything Harper and the Cons stand for. It is very likely that when asked in a poll they will all answer in favour of Harper, especially given the signals from Harper and the Cons that they are making ‘patriotism’ a major campaign issue. Whereas the general population will not be so one sided. This skewing probably accounts for the poll result on patriotism.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

The Poll explains why the Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. Such ‘propaganda’ are typical of extreme right wing idealogues with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what Harper and the Cons mean when they refer to their party as a ‘Populist’ party.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Liberals should do a response ad comparing Harper credentials, or lack thereof, with Ignatieff’s

2009-05-29T10:04:00.000-07:00

Posted to: G&M, “Just answer the question, Iggy”, Rick Salutin, 29 May ‘09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-answer-the-question-iggy/article1158499/#

5/29/2009 12:58:28 PM

I suspect that these attack ads are designed to obscure attention away from Harper himself – i.e. Harper’s background, or lack thereof, and his very close connection, actual and ideological, to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party in the US. One need simply compare Harper’s background to that of Ignatieff to see that Ignatieff outclasses Harper by a country mile, whatever that ‘country’ is. There is simply no comparison.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Perhaps the Liberal should come out with an Ad that makes a comparison between Harper’s background and Ignatieff’s background. Then at least people would have something upon which they may base a rational decision and see Harper for what he really is – an extreme right wing idealogue with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what they mean when they call themselves a ‘Populist’ party.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

The Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. There is no intention of discourse on any type of meaningful level, above playing on people’s raw emotion. One need only observe that they are totally divest of any explanation as to why Ignatieff’s background outside Canada might be a drawback in leading our country. Of course, such ads, they used to be called propaganda, typically consisting of fear mongering and xenophobia, form one of the main pillars upon which all extreme right wing ideologue groups support their objectives.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

With Harper’s strong leaning to the United States and strong ideological ties to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party one might suspect that he will be looking for a job there when he ‘retires from office’. Perhaps as a lecturer at Harvard. Given his recent personal PR campaign in the States, at the tax payer’s expense, this is not such a far out thought.

…………………………………………………………………

- The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights.

2009-05-23T08:18:00.000-07:00

Submitted to the Toronot Star, "Dark virus infects budget office", 23 May '09, James Travers.

The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this

"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(As Travers so aptly quotes Robert Marleau, information commissioner).

Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.

...

Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.

When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.

When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they? I don’t know, ask Travers.

- Carbon Tax was a Non-Issue in the BC Election – The Real Issue was the Uselessness of Fixed date Elections

2009-05-18T09:05:00.000-07:00

Globe and mail, “How a B.C. carbon tax rose from Dion's ashes“,Stewart Elgie And David Boyd And Chris Waddell, May 17, 2009 at 10:51 PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wcocarbon18/BNStory/specialComment/home

I am not sure that the election in BC supports all your conclusions. The BC election was not issue based, it was called simply because of legislation requiring an election every four years. The campaigns were very low key, to say the least. The electorate were very much disengaged. This non-necessary, non-issue, non-engaged, dis-interest was manifested in the lowest turnout in BC history (50%) and that the result were essentially the same as before.

Carol James tried to make the carbon tax an issue but, except getting the environmentalists mad at her, it really did nothing.

One might say that the economy so dominated the election that no other issue had much traction. But, I am not sure that this is at all accurate. For one thing, NDP, in my opinion anyway, is not viewed by the electorate as an “economy issues” party. So, in an election where the economy so dominated one would expect that it would be very one sided and result in a bigger majority for the Liberals. But it wasn’t and it didn’t.

On the other side, I don’t think you can conclude that there was a backlash against the Liberals for their handling of the economy, or for their carbon tax. Once again if this were the case you would expect that the NDP supporters would be motivated and mobilized, which the % of voters and the results does not bear out – nobody was motivated, in the least.

The real issue in this election, to me, is the requirement to have a fixed election date, set out in legislation. It may work for Americans but then, we’re not Americans, are we.

The carbon tax was pretty much irrelevant to the election or its results and so I can’t see how you can use the BC election to infer very much regarding the carbon tax issue or global warming generally.

Lloyd Maclquham

- Comment Posted to the G&M

2009-05-18T09:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530#Comments

About Lloyd MacIlquham at 11:37 AM Sunday, May 17 2009

His composition is superb and his point well made. I have no doubt I had, -- after a long time, -- a chance to read some lines of high wisdom.
Submitted by zoroni at 5:46 PM Sunday, May 17 2009

- History will look back at Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues

2009-05-17T08:40:00.000-07:00

submitted 17 May '09, 8:35am(PDT) to:
Toronto Star, “Knee-deep in political mud and still sinking”, 17 May ’09, Angelo Persichilli http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530

" Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times."

I remember Mulroney and I remember Turner. I also remember Chrétien and of course, Martin. What I don’t remember is anything that comes anywhere near the blatant distortion of truth and unabashed slanderous attacks that Harper and the Con’s are doing. Harper has “ramped it up” to a level never seen before in Canadian politics. Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.

10 –15 years ago we may have referred to it as ‘attack” ads but when comparing it to what Harper and the Cons are doing it was nothing more than boy scouts talking around a camp fire. “The truth be told” it is as different as “an apple and a fridge”.

"History will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues"

Also, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper is not that same party as the Progressive Conservative Party (PC’s) of Brian Mulroney and John Diefenbaker. Again, “The truth be told” they are as different as “an apple and a fridge”.

I never supported the PC’s but I acknowledge that the PC’s had a long and venerable history serving Canada with honour and distinction. They should be proud of their legacy and in fact most Canadians, I suggest, are.

When history looks back at Steven Harper and the Cons I cannot imagine that anyone would dream of suggesting the Harper and the Cons have served Canada with honour and distinction.

Rather, I suggest that history will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues that attempted to systematically dismantled national unity and tear asunder the social fabric that we, through the PC’s and Liberals, spent over a century weaving.

- Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.

2009-05-14T09:07:00.000-07:00

Comment posted to:
Globe and Mail, “Desperate times for Tories call for desperate attack ads”, May 14, 2009, Lawrence Martin
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090513.wcomartin14/BNStory/specialComment/home

For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff as they are, and will be, is sheer partisan politics and dishonest.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

One need only recall their ‘call-to-arms’ last December to see how potentially divisive and hurtful Harper and the Cons’ propaganda campaigns can be to the future of our country.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

For Harper Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. He has already shown us his distain for Parliament and disrespect for the most fundamental of our Democratic institutions.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The problem is that Harper and the Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.

- Laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach has no place in a modern, complex, economy based society such as is Canada’s

2009-05-10T09:38:00.000-07:00

My E-mail to lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca
sent 10 May.'09:

Hi Lorrie Goldstein

The following is a comment on your article in the Toronto Sun, “A 'liberal' state of mind”, 10th May 2009, 3:49am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/05/10/9410256-sun.html

I am quite surprised that, in this day and age, your newspaper does not allow people to post comments – both the Toronto Star and Globe and mail do.

I am posting this to my blog:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html

You may E-mail me, at this E-mail address, a response if you wish for my consideration.

“Freedom’ and ‘individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order’ are all afforded by a good standard of living. One need only look to the deficiency of freedom, individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order people in third world countries have, except those very few that have money. One need also only look at those living in poverty in the United States.

The foundation of a good standard of living is education. It is clear that education must start early in life. Education has the added benefit of produces well adjusted members of society who understand and have learned the need to co-operate and live in harmony with everyone else.

One need only look at the causes of the current and severe economic downturn to see the problems of allowing ‘entrepreneurial’ forces to run amuck and unchecked.

Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., may be a good psychiatrist, I have no idea, but simply testifying at thousands of trials in the United States neither means, per se, he is good (one need only look at Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario) nor that he has any understanding of the Canadian social or political context. Canadian society, precisely in this regard, is very much distinct to US society.

For example, in my observation, Canadians believe firmly in the social safety net actively established and maintained by government policies. The Americans subscribe to a far more laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach to society and their economy. This by itself is fatal to relying on his opinion in these matters as they apply to the Canadian context and one need not go further to investigate his competence to give an informed opinion on political matters, or the merits of said opinions.

It seems to me that this is more a testament to the power of education and social freedom in a country like the United States – i.e. no matter what the opinion, you can find someone with high credentials expounding it, just watch some of the ‘Infomercials’, or read, or listen to, some of their media editorials.

On the other hand I can see how those subscribing to a right wing extremist ideology might be tempted to blindly embrace his ruminations with or without an objective assessment of their merits or relevance to the Canadian context.

If I recall it seems to me the comment by Scott Reid had to do with the Harper government shirking the responsibility of our Federal government regarding day care and adopting the ‘sink-or-swim’ approach the American seems to embrace so much. Day care is a serious and important element of our society, and our future, and the education of our young. $100 a month does not come close to paying for it (If you can do it, please let me know how I can and I would be more than happy to retract this statement). Realistically, the only way that meaningful, quality Day-Care will be available to all Canadians, and not just those with a high income, is a program established and maintained by the government. Such government initiatives work, we all know that.

It seems to me that "winners," as opposed to "losers," is referring to Harper’s Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s statement regarding refusing to helping out the Ford Motor Company in Jan.’08 – vis.: “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).

When looked at in the current economic context we see just how wrong Flaherty was, and the extent to which blindly and dogmatically applying this laissez-faire, right wing, extremist ideology expounded by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., is out of step and damaging in a modern, complex, economy based society such as Canada has. On the other hand, if Flaherty was speaking for himself, Harper and the Con’s then, I am sure, he got their inability to take an active approach to running the country right – one need only look at the events as they have been unfolding since Jan.’08.

Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC,

- Harper’s Ham-Stringing and Strong-Arming Our Parliamentary and Administrative Watch-Dogs

2009-05-09T08:28:00.000-07:00

comment on: Toronto Star, “Another victory for hired guns”, May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/631673

There I no doubt that Harper is systematically and deliberately ham-stringing and strong-arming the various Parliamentary and administrative institutions whose purpose is to ‘keep the government honest’ by ensuring the people of Canada know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and in timely fashion. That “bureaucrats helped the government deliver an essentially misleading economic update while mixing public policy and political provocation” is alarming and should be a warning to all Canadians.

This of course is an integral part of his general suppression of information and hiding and distorting the truth. This is also reflected in his total distain for integrity of Parliament. The goal is, obviously and as suggested, to concentrate power in his hands alone, without regard for the will of Parliament or the will of the people of Canada.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a

2009-05-09T07:31:00.000-07:00

Submitted to: Toronto Star, "Ignatieff's Turner problem", May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, Thomas Walkom
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/631587

If you look at the examples given in this article the only problem Ignatieff might have is being open, transparent, logical, and, basically, being a straight shooter.

It is certainly out of step with the Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.

But to suggest that that makes him out of touch with Canada is perverse and, fortunately, erroneous.

Also, implied is that somehow Lester B. Pearson is a leader that we all, as Canadians, ought not to turn to as an example of the type of competence and integrity that we should not only desire in our leader but demand in our leader.

The problem is that the Harper and Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.

The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a good thing.

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Reply to My Comments posted to Toronto Star, 7 May '09 - see below

2009-05-08T09:57:00.000-07:00

To Lloyd MacIlquham

Your posting under "Without transparency..." is one of the best I have seen in the Star. I hope that a lot of people read it, especially those Conservative (Reform/Alliance) supporters who want to put Harper on a pedestal so they can prostrate themselves before him.
Submitted by E.B. at 12:50 PM Thursday, May 07 2009

http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments

- Without transparency and the free, undistorted and unobstructed access to information the line between ‘Education’ and ‘Propaganda’ can be blurred

2009-05-07T07:54:00.000-07:00

submitted to:
Toronto Star, 'Education our only magic elixir', May 07, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments

Just Look at Harper and the Con’s

Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).

Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.

I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.

Lloyd MacIlquham