BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)
«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
From: "E E Hollingsworth"Subject: Todays 30
Wow, what a great range of opinion on "the situation'. One opinion however. in my book should not have been there and thats the opinion of Andy Jones who said "thats why I didn't vote" You dont vote who cares what you think
Ellery Hollingsworth
=====
. . . agreed.
No vote, no opinion of value.
Once I hitchhiked 120 miles
(you can figure out the ks)
to cast what I knew was a
losing voe.
===================================
From: alan heisey <hize@sympatico.ca>
To: "joe hueglin, daily digest" <joe.hueglin@bellnet.ca>
Subject: Fwd: for your consideration
j, please publish this short note to the gg and others and oblige, cordially, hize
Begin forwarded message:
From: alan heisey <hize@earthlink.net>
Date: 2008 December2 17:37:18 GMT-05:00
To: Info@GG.CA
Cc: pm@pm.gc.ca
Subject: for your consideration
08 12 2 tueday
excellency
i would like to go on the record as favouring your ordering a general election, rather than following the more conventional tradition of inviting the leader of the opposition to form a government.
i think our perilous times require a clearer mandate.
respectfully
cordially
alan heisey, sr.
38 avoca avenue, lph #6
toronto, on, m4t 2b9
===================================
Subject: Mister P's prognostications
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"
Mr. P's prognostications ...
1. The CPC prorogues the House to buy some time. The GG goes along with it.
2. Stephen Harper: kaput. Gone in weeks, maybe 1-2 from now. Stays Preem until the Governor General decides what to do, then resigns as Party Leader. The CPC names and Interim Leader to lead it until a permanent one gets elected by Party Members.
3. Jim Prentice will have the early lead to replace Steve-o.
4. The GG decides NOT to accept the Conservative government's resignation. Steve-o himself may renounce the CPC Leadership, but the GG asks the CPC to form a government, even if it's a minority one.
5. The current Opposition gets the point: no Frankenstein government without an election. The Bloc understands the GG's 'democratic reasoning', accepts it, and withdraws its support for a Liberal-NDP coalition.
6. Both the Liberals and the NDP get it in the goolies. The Bloc comes outhead high, having shown the other two who's the kingmaker around here.
7. While all this is going on, the Bloc may extract a pound of flesh from the CPC, probably along the lines of $$$ for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. Whether the flesh gets excised now or later (or taken now but announced later), the Bloc would be 'responsible' in upholding the government while at the same time having addressed some critical need of the Bloc's electorate.
In the end, the Bloc will have stuck it to the Liberals and the NDP, will prop up the CPC for a while, and will get $$$ for its pet projects (manufacturing and forestry). Now, wouldn't THAT be a coup!
Will they think of all this and be able to pull it off? It depends on what the GG does, but I'd lay my money down on things working out more or less as described above.
You heard it here first, folks!
'Mister' Stratos P.
===================================
From: "Anne Dickinson"
Subject: Re: BELOW(30) UPDATE
Hi Joe-
One thing is clear, all the so called "bloopers" of the Conservative Parties election campaign, the pooping puffins etc, that were blamed on over zealous members of the war room, reflect the hyper partisan, hit below the belt Prime Minister.
Conservative Party members, even cabinet ministers, were shushed in case someone reveal themselves to have views that might discredit the party.Instead everything flowed through the brilliant tactician himself, Mr.Harper.
What is completely clear now is that despite blue sweater vests and syrupy music,Stephen Harper is a petty ,vindictive, hyper partisan fixer. A control freak. but no leader.
Anne Dickinson
===================================
From: "Suan H.Booiman"
Subject: USSR
Canada has its own U S S R the
United Socialist Separatist Renegades
===================================
From: Caspar Davis
Subject: "Western Canada"
Hi Joe,
I've just sent this to the CBC's Current. I could have said a great deal more, but I reined myself in.
I am really sick of Alberta being called "Western Canada". The last time I looked at the map, British Columbia was west of Alberta. Alberta is a prairie province, not a western province. I live in Victoria, which is almost as far west as you can go in Canada, and I am absolutely fed up with Harper's bullying.
Throughout the campaign all we heard was how civil and cooperative the new parliament would be, yet Harper's first act was to issue a statement that scorned the values of the other three parties (who received almost 2/3 of the vote) and which was also a serious threat to their financial well being. Mr. Harper is a congenital bully. He seems to know no other way to act.
I think a coalition is a very exciting idea - imagine a government that actually has to consider and debate alternative views before pronouncing policy. Almost everyone outside of Alberta agrees that M. Dion is a good and intelligent man. Wouldn't it be nice to have a Prime Minister like that even for a short time?
Also, the Conservatives keep talking about how they have more seats than before. That is true, but it is also true that they received fewer votes than in the last election. The only party that increased its vote in the recent election was the Greens.
Caspar Davis
Victoria
===================================
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website- Question
From: Anne-Marie.Laderoute
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" or, rather, false patriotism.
Churchill?
=====
. . . Churchillian, yes, but somewhat prior
to him by another Britisher.
Joe
http://www.samueljohnson.com/refuge.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson
===================================
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website
From: Darren Buchanan
I can't help but laugh at the B.S. taking place in Ottawa, because it is funny? No because it is sooo predictable. Why do we conservatives not know how to govern properly, I have many opinions on that matter, but I will save that for another post. The last time I wrote on this forum was right after the PC Party leadership, you remember Joe Clark and Peter McKay made the deal with the Orchard gang. I said it then and I say it now! Clark and McKay screwed this party over. In my opinion having witnessed it first hand, that if those 3 stooges cared anything for our party we would have Prentice at the helm, Brisson in the cabinet, and a majority government. But no we have Prime Minister we don't want, cabinet ministers that are incompetent, and a minority government about to fall. I don't no whether to laugh or cry, but I do no who to blame JOE CLARK that's who.
===================================
From: "Randy Kubik"
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website
December 2, 2008:
Randy Kubik
Although it may be within constitutional legality to do what the opposition is doing, it does not make it right or valid or ethical or moral or democratic... in the people's eyes... and the people are the deciders in a true democracy.
Saying that we have a Parliamentary System...and this is the way that works.... blah, blah, blah, even if it is all true does not make it what Canadians want or expect by having what is called a "democracy".
The word "democracy" is a system of governing organizations and territories that is all about the people who are participating. The people are the ones who must decide on any matter of importance, and especially on matters of greatest importance... and i would say that this is a pretty important matter...
Canadians voted 6 weeks ago for a continuation of the course that the Conservative government was on... and has a right to expect a reasonable time to pass to assess actual performance... It should not be up to Jean Chrétien, Ed Broadbent, Jack Layton, and Stephen Dion to make that determination for us... SIMPLY IT IS NOT!!! THIS IS NOT A MODERN DAY HIGH TECH VERSION OF A WORLD BANANA REPUBLIC, which we would be if this Coalition is allowed.
TRUE, Stephen Harper made a huge strategic blunder by including unnecessary and purposefully provocative measures in the economic update (eliminating Political Party Funding.... duh! really, really stupid!!!). The point here is that political strategy should not have come into play at all.... in the first place.
And so it is also TRUE that all these recent events and political game moves and manouvering proves that the political leaders we have in this country, past and present, are what they are... THEY ARE what they ARE... self serving for power's sake....
They cannot help themselves, really!
Even the biggest economic crisis in our lifetimes could not trump, let alone put a dent in the political DNA of most politicians we know.
THEREFORE, I am FOR proroguing parliament until January and have a confidence vote on a Throne Speech / Budget to be delivered January 27, 2009.... even if the optics look bad... the Optics would be that Harper and the government are running away from a confidence vote... I AM VERY OK WITH THAT... I THINK MANY CANADIANS WOULD ALSO BE VERY OK WITH THAT.... SO BE IT!!!!!
AND, if the Opposition (coalition or not) wants to have an election in early March, then bring it on!
Proroguing is not a delay tactic per se to escape the "inevitable", but a way to postpone the next election to about March 9, 2009 if the Opposition still wishes to vote No Confidence after the Throne Speech / Budget is PRESENTED....
One last thing. it would be very unwise to move ahead with massive spending and stimulation, other than Infrastructure, without co-ordinating it with what the OBAMA and the USA decide to do... Jumping the gun could be very costly...
THIS SEEMS THAT IT SHOULD BE CRYSTAL CLEAR and OBVIOUS TO ANY RATIONAL CANADIAN.
===================================
From: Ron Thornton
Subject: Re: *TELUS Detected Spam*RALLY FOR CANADA website
Joe:
In regards to the following, please be advised that in my humble opinion you are full of shit.
There is a downturn in the economy, the stock market has dropped, and some are unemployed. However, we do not have millions out of work, folks are not lining up at soup kitchens, we have little to go on in regards to a coherent and legitimate financial aid package to auto makers or anyone else who claims they are cutting back for more than to enhance the profit margin for that matter, and we are two months away from a trillion dollar influx by the Americans.
Subject: Re: Okay, you might be full of it, but...
Hi again, Joe:
While I suggested in my previous post that you might be up to your chin in fertilizer, let me put forward what I believe is the only rational way to end this political mess in Ottawa. Call an election, knowing that if the Conservatives win a plurality of seats in the Commons but fail to form a majority government, then the government we shall have will be a Liberal-NDP coalition propped up by the BQ. It is a pretty black and white, and it resolves the issue by the most democratic of principles of letting the people decide.
Ron.
===================================
From: Malcolm Palmer
Subject: RE: RALLY FOR CANADA website
Joe, I really agree with you - here are my thoughts:
We almost had a Conservative coup-d'etat and they may yet succeed in imposing a one-party monopoly on government in Canada, just as we in Alberta have suffered one-party Conservative government for almost 40 years. Had Stephen Harper's Conservatives succeeded in abolishing public funding for political parties, the Conservatives would have enjoyed an overwhelming monopoly on the richest political donors, and corporate donations would have ruled the federal government, just as they have ruled the provincial government of Alberta for years.
Do you know the difference between Communism and Alberta Conservatism?
- Both begin with "C".
"Government for the wealthy, by the wealthy, shall not disappear from the face of Canada."
Thanks and I pray to God we don't have another Conservative monopoly.
Malcolm F Palmer
===================================
From: Tom Brewer
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website
Our Conservative friends Harper supporters… seem to have messed up the web page! I too wanted to leave a message but could not… like DUH… Canada's sole thinkers (in my opinion) goofed.
The information I could read suggests a number of Harper supporters must believe Stephen is our President!
Excuse me NOT!
Our system is different than the US model…. Get it right people, you look like dumb a******* not knowing the difference. If you want it to be like the US then changes have to be made to our Constitution. Of course if we are told differently over and over and over, I guess that changes things automatically. NOT!
Tell me Stephen Harper would not attempt to use the same tactics if in a similar position… and I will tell you I have ocean front property for sale real cheap… in Arizona.
Stephen's marks in school must have been failures! If he loves the US method so much… then move… please! Do us all a favour and pack your controlling methods where the sun don't shine.
===================================
From: "Noel St-Laurent"
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website
Joe,
Just for the sake of discussion, I have sent the following to each Member of the House of Commons and to numerous newspapers as a letter to the editor.
The following is an open letter to Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and to all Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs.
Honourable Members of the Canadian Parliament,
You need to be reminded that:
74% of Canada rejected Stéphane and the Liberal party;
82% of voters rejected Jack and the New Democratic party;
90% of Canada did not vote for Gilles and the Bloc Québécois.
We had our election.
You were soundly defeated. All of you.
So, let the governing party do its job and stop being obstructionists, all of you.
I don't want a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition government or another election.
Noël St-Laurent
===================================
From: Charlotte Garrett <
Subject: Harper Government
Dear Joe: Re the coalition
The Harper minority is just that: a minority. Without proportional representation Canada has a skewed system of government in which the minority can rule. Harper broke his own law and called an illegal election at the cost of 300 million dollars!!! This use of taxpayer money at a time of economic crisis for a second minority is unconscionable.
A coalition would represent the majority interests of Canadian, not the minority.
To rally for a Harper-Conservative government is ignorance at its absolute worst since Harper has never been concerned with the best interests of Canadians.
Harper the bully uses tactics of blame and attack. He needs to be gone, gone, and gone. Hopefully the bully who represents the minority of Canadian values will at last be ousted!!
Charlotte Garrett
===================================
From: "Doreen Edgar"
Subject: RE: RALLY FOR CANADA website
I think having the opposition in power is a fantastic idea. Harper is the most mean spirited and egotistical individual bent on destroying the other political parties and to hell with the economy.
Doreen
===================================
Subject: RE: RALLY FOR CANADA website
From: "Chris Dennis"
What is Michelle Jean's address? – Flood her computer
We vote or NO WAY!
===================================
From: "John Halonen"
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website
A Facebook response to the Rally for Canada Web Site
Attend a RALLY to support Stephen Harper. NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!
Remember that the NDP & Liberals had more support from Canadians than the CONSERVATIVE party.
Stephen Harper is actually the one trying to destroy Canada as we know it.
Add those who voted for the Green Party and the BLOC one could say the Conservatives hardly represents all Canadians
Even if you remove the BLOC the Conservatives under Stephen Harper are still far behind.
Minority Governments are minorities. Members of Parliament have the right to join others to form a majority. Even those belonging
to the Conservative party can join this new coalition or the Conservative part.y could solicit members from the opposition to reach a true majority.
John Halonen
===================================
From: Patricia Cross
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website
Refuse to sign on to Facebook. But I see a lot of support for the "coalition"
Sorry, I cannot agree.
In these uncertain times, we need STABILITY - look what's happened to our stock market in one day!
Greenhorns running the government is our worst nightmare - it will take them 6 months to find their desks!
A coalition of three - 2 leaders who are about to be replaced by their own members and a 3rd who leads the party that wants to break up our country.
We might as well all leave the country - I'm 72 years old & have never felt this down about Canada's future.
Please help get the crazy, power hungry loons off the stage and let the sitting government get back to taking care of business.
The people voted, they did not give Harper carte blanche by giving him only a minority government. The opposition's DUTY to Canada is to hold the government accountable, not vote down everything they try to do. Dion is behaving like a spoiled crybaby and the 3 running to take his place are rubbing their hands with glee, ready to assume the title of Prime Minister without earning it.
Where is Democracy? Has Canada lost it completely?
If I, the voter, am willing to accept the decision of the Canadian people, then why aren't the elected politicians (all of them) doing the same? Aren't we all working for the same thing - our Canada?!?
Patricia Cross
===================================
Subject: LTE
From: "Michael Watkins"
I sent this out via the Green Party site:
http://www.defendourdemocracy.ca/sendaletter.php
Dear Editor:
Preston Manning recently has said that parliament should be focussing on
the economy, not fighting political battles over control of the
government. I agree.
Mr. Harper abused his power as Prime Minister to call an election more
than a year before his own law would allow, for no reason other than his
own partisan benefit as he wished to win an election before the full
scope of the economic crisis unfolding around us became clearer to
Canadians.
In short, Harper ran away from the problem then and should not be rewarded
with the confidence of the House of Commons nor of the people of Canada
now.
No longer enjoying the confidence of the House, Harper with brazen
impudence claims the opposition have no right to use their majority power
in the House of Commons. The House has the prerogative to cast a vote of
non-confidence in the government. The Prime Minister can not hide forever
from the judgement of all parliamentarians nor should he try.
===================================
From: Joerge Dyrkton
Subject: RE: RALLY FOR CANADA website
Hello Joe,
Parliament, thankfully, has every right to check the undemocratic excesses of the executive, Stephen Harper's prime ministerial government. If there is no coalition government, who will stop Harper the next time around? His cabinet is sworn to secrecy (there is no internal contest for power, apparently), and its members are so subordinate to Harper's control they can hardly make a decision on their own. The machinery of the conservative party remains – for the time being - at Harper's fingertips.
The issue is not which party won the most recent election, because no one won a majority, and thankfully Harper did not, despite his every effort. There are coalitions in other countries, why not Canada? It's not an issue of what party got what percentage of the vote, whether percentages were increasing or decreasing. And it has nothing to do with whether parties gained seats or lost seats in the last election.
It's not simply an issue of economic incompetence in a time of apparent global crisis. Doing nothing is still doing something, I can grant that. Even the question of leadership of the coalition looks trivial in the light of Harper's political malpractice.
The issue is that Harper's prime ministerial government crossed the Rubicon when he tried to cut the meagre public funding (paid out of our every vote) to each political party just weeks after an election he foisted on us. This represents a malevolent attack on all opposition parties, and on Joe and Jill the public, and it strikes at the heart of our Canadian democracy.
Without voter-funding for opposition parties, how can Parliament function? Who will represent us? With one party apparently well funded and no other party respectfully funded, what does government look like? It does not resemble a modern democracy to me. I would rather have a coalition government that recognizes the democratic rights of its opposition than a Conservative minority government that wants after an election to veto how the public finances its voter preference. Right now Parliament is defending itself and collectively responding to the illiberal and undemocratic machinations of a single man, Stephen Harper, better known as Mr. No Credibility.
===================================
From: "Rebecca Gingrich"
Subject: Conservative Attorney General Seeks to Quash Morgentaler Order of Canada Challenge
Nicholson campaigns to keep Section 13 of the CHRC and keep the Order of
Canada for Morgentaler? How democratic after almost 17,000 people have
signed the petition to have the OoC removed from Morgentaler.
becky
Conservative Attorney General Seeks to Quash Morgentaler Order of Canada Challenge
Lawyer says Attorney General and Dept of Justice taking an "aggressive "position" and "unusual step"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08120110.html
===================================
From: alan heisey <hize@earthlink.net>
Subject: Fwd: Monarchist Alert: Dominion Chairman's Message on the current situation in Ottawa
j, this is classic. you should publish it! cz
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Dominion Secretary" <domsec@sympatico.ca>
Date: 2008 December2 16:05:48 GMT-05:00
To: "Dominion Secretary" <domsec@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Monarchist Alert: Dominion Chairman's Message on the current situation in Ottawa
STATEMENT TO MEMBERS
ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION IN OTTAWA
BY ROBERT FINCH
DOMINION CHAIRMAN, THE MONARCHIST LEAGUE OF CANADA
There is much speculation, a good deal of it ill-informed, about the possible involvement of the Crown should the Harper government be defeated in the House of Commons.
There are several points worth making, which you may feel free to pass on to your family, friends and colleagues as they discuss what is certainly a time of both economic difficulty and high political drama:
a) While we may be in difficult economic circumstances, Canada is not enmeshed in any "constitutional crisis." The Governor General is, prudently, curtailing her foreign trip in order to be present should her involvement be necessitated. As might be expected, the Prime Minister and his colleagues are considering how they might retain office. Equally as is to be expected, the Opposition leaders are considering how the situation might work to their advantage; and they have made a declaration of their intention to work together in some form of coalition government should the situation arise where they might be called to do so. That is their right, although their agreement has no legal force or standing.
b) As Monarchists, we have no opinion as to which party or grouping of parties might best handle Canada's economic affairs. As citizens, of course each of us does have such an opinion. But in commenting on or recommending a course of action to the Governor General, we have to be careful to divorce our partisan and economic views from our analysis of what role, if any, the Crown should play in the current and fast-evolving circumstances.
c) All the political players should bend over backwards to avoid putting the Crown in a position where it has to use its independent authority.
d) However, if this cannot be avoided, we should remember that the Crown is not a china doll, but a robust Canadian institution whose reserve powers are seldom used but which can be efficacious in unusual circumstances. The Canadian Monarchy will not be imperiled if indeed Her Excellency needs to act independently, although reasonable people (and probably, some unreasonable ones, too!) will inevitably disagree over those actions, just as economists and politicians disagree over the degree of seriousness of the economic conditions Canada faces and the measures that should be taken to address them.
e) The Crown's role remains, as always, first, to ensure that the will of the electorate is carried out when its voice is clear, as it was, for instance after the last election when it was obvious Mr Harper would continue in office; second, to enable the national will to be expressed by means of an election whenever that seems the best course - as Her Excellency would not wish under most circumstances to substitute her judgement for that of the electorate; and third, to enable The Queen's government, that is the day-to-day governance of Canada - especially in any time of crisis - to continue in the most uninterrupted way, the acid test for governance in Canada being the ability of a government to command the confidence of the House of Commons.
f) Should Mr Harper's government be defeated, he has several options in his role as Prime Minister and therefore as Her Excellency's sole Constitutional "Advisor" (though of course the Governor General has access to any Constitutional and legal scholars she may choose to consult). He might i) advise her to dissolve Parliament and cause an immediate election to be held; ii) advise her to summon one of his colleagues to form a government (eg, a Conservative more acceptable to the House) which course seems unlikely as the differences are apparently centred on policy issues or iii) he could choose to resign. If iii) eventuated (which could also happen if Her Excellency refused his request for a dissolution), he could give such advice as he pleased to the Governor General, but no longer would such advice have the same standing.
g) The GG has discretion to consider Mr Harper's advice in light of both the current economic situation and the recently-held election. Amongst a plethora of possible scenarios, she could agree to an immediate dissolution; she could ask Mr Harper (or another member of the current government) to form another administration which might command the confidence of the House; or she could accept his resignation and then consider the offer which is on the table from a possible alternative government. In respect of the latter, Her Excellency could invite the putative coaltition to form a government, but - as Malcolm Fraser was told by the Governor General of Australia after the dismissal of the Whitlam government (1975) - in doing so she could say to Mr Dion that she would only give him a Commission on the basis that he would quickly pass a budget and other urgent financial measures through the House by a date certain and then immediately ask her for a dissolution so that the people could choose their government.
h) The League sees the above-described course as appealing, should these circumstances arise, as it would enable governance to continue amidst financial and political upheaval and to deal with it urgently, but would make clear that the ultimate and fairly immediate decision would be that of the electorate - so insulating the Governor General from the criticism that she had effectively installed a Liberal/NDP coalition for 2.5 yrs (reported to be the length of the agreement between the Liberal and NDP leaders) which might be problematic.
i) The judgment which Mme Jean would make in this instance would be between the supposed urgency of financial measures making their way through the House now with an election to be called in a few weeks or so, or the effect on the economy of a dissolution now which would leave Canada without a Parliament to act for another six weeks, although Mr Harper or whoever was Prime Minister would continue to govern in that time as would happen in any other election period.. It would be a difficult decision.
I hope this is helpful to you as you sort through the many complex issues which are before us, and which the above statement can only address in a brief and necessarily-incomplete way. We may all hope that the matter be resolved without the necessity of independent action being taken by the Crown - and that, as has often happened in the past, the mere existence of the Crown's Reserve Powers will encourage our political leaders to arrange matters in the best interest of the country without regard to personal ambition and partisan consideration.
===================================
From: "Brian Clark"
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website
Joe, I had to read this a few times and I think you are agreeing with the coalition.
I can't believe you were once a conservative. I can't disagree more.
If this were the Liberals and NDP combining forces to defeat the Conservatives and between them hold a majority, then ok.
But this is the Liberals, NDP, and separatists joinng forces. To form a government, they need to be sworn in. That process involves swearing allegiance to Canada and the Crown.
The separatists stand for the destruction of Canada. They aren't fit to be part of a government alliance because they swear allegiance to the destruction of Canada. *
In addition, the wannabe PM Stephane Dion has already been rejected as a leader by the electorate and his own party. I am utterly disgusted with this Liberal bunch in a power grab lust that will threaten the unity of Canada. Just listen to what the separatists are saying in Quebec and how the Bloc cheered that message ( to the dismay of the leaderless rudderless Liberals) today.
I say if they want to join forces and govern, then let's have an election and let the people decide if they want a separatist coalition or not.
Of course, that is Dion's greatest nightmare, which after all is what this is really all about.
Brian
=====
* Then why did Opposition Leader Harper seek to form one with them?
===================================
From: David Hawn
Subject: Rally For Canada
What Her Majesty's Loyal? Opposition is proposing is a coalition of the very soft capitalist Liberals, the socialist NDP, and the separatist Bloc who want to take a large slice out of the centre of our country.
Are you really suggesting this merry band is better suited to handling the world-wide economics than Harper's Conservatives?
Lord help us all!
David Hawn, Ottawa
===================================
From: "Anne Dickinson"
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website
Astonishing.
I guess what Harper and his pals learned over the of course of the election campaign is that
you can sell anything with the proper ads and lots of spin.
Honour and truth nowhere to be seen.
The gong show continues.
Anne Dickinson
===================================
From: "Bernard J Finestone"
Subject: Fw: our nation
----- Original Message -----
From: Executive Director
To: michael ignatieff PA/PARL ; Stephane Dion ; jack layton ; pm
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 12:35 PM
Subject: our nation
All
Powerful words from a great Canadian sailor, whose family has served this great nation of ours for decades with honour and distinction.
Alain Pellerin, Colonel (Ret'd)
Executive Director, CDA-CDAI / Directeur exécutif, CAD-ICAD
222 rue Somerset Street West / Ouest, Suite 400B
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2G3
www.cda-cdai.ca
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Our Nation
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:24:21 -0800
From: Nigel Brodeur
To: Lunn - Gary MP <lunnmp@garylunn.com>, "Martin, Keith - Riding 1" <MartiK1@parl.gc.ca>
Gentlemen, As you both may be aware I contributed financially towards your recent re-election - not because of your Party affiliations but because I know and respect both of you. Regretfully, I am too old now to serve Canada in any political capacity. However, I did serve faithfully for 38 years in the RCN and the Canadian Armed Forces - including in NDHQ, as a Rear Admiral and Vice Admiral, where I had the honour to serve both under Liberal and Conservative Ministers of National Defence. In every instance they received my complete respect and loyalty regardless of Party. My father also served in Canada's Navy for 37 years from 1909 to 1946. He commanded several RCN ships and both coasts, and was ultimately the Commanding Officer Pacific Coast during the last three years of World War II. His father was Speaker of the House of Commons, during the Laurier Government, then was Minister of Inland Revenue, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries (in which capacity he became the founding Minister of the Royal Canadian Navy), then served as Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and ultimately died in office as Lieutenant Governor of Quebec. He devoted his entire life to Canada. On behalf of three generations who have devoted their lives to Canada, I unequivocally condemn the power grabbing political charade now taking place in Parliament. We are witnessing a deplorable and juvenile scene which demeans its participants, and also further erodes the residual prestige of a Canada which in both World Wars achieved greatness and international respect. Politicians and their sycophants delude themselves into believing that Canada has influence and prestige in the modern world. Compared to the Canadian international influence and prestige I witnessed in the 1950's we have become moralizing nonentities who are recognizably no longer even capable of constructing our own warships, submarines and military aircraft; and will soon become totally dependent on other nations for even our means of defence. When a terrorist crisis hits Canada - and someday it undoubtedly will - the politicians will scurry about seeking who to blame for lack of capability or preparedness. I can save them the trouble - look in the mirror! Make it a long look if you come from the NDP - the political party which has consistently opposed defence spending over the past three decades! So this obviously dysfunctional consortia is about to approach the Governor General seeking her concurrence to form the next government? Ask yourselves how Her Excellency will be able to reconcile the fact that Canadian soldiers, of whom she is the Commander-in-Chief, are fighting, and dying for Canada in Afghanistan; while Canadian politicians are obsessed with power grabbing. Our military are not stupid - how long can they be expected to put their lives on the line under those circumstances? There was a stunning contrast yesterday between the statesmanship displayed by President-Elect Obama with his National Security Team and the complete lack of statesmanship in Canada's Parliament. A great many Canadians will have noted that contrast and be disgusted with Canada's politicians. I realize that you are only two Members of Parliament among many. I can only hope that my words and my respect for you may assist you in bringing your colleagues to their senses. Sincerely Nigel Brodeur===================================
From: Caspar Davis
Subject: Pro-Coalition Petition!
With the "Conservative" Party using their money bags to smear the coalition - using their usual blend of snide innuendo and outright lies, it is vital that friends of the coalition make their voices heard. Avaaz is helping us do just that:
The Avaaz A-team is at it again (are they the Apple of online activism or what?), this time with a petition in favour of the would-be Liberal-NDP coalition. I'm not sure they're going to need a petition, but signing can't hurt. The wording is below, and you can sign it here:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/coalition_for_canada/98.php/?CLICK_TF_TRACK
We citizens of Canada express our strong support for a coalition government to replace the minority government of Stephen Harper, and call upon all opposition parties to maintain their unity. We ask the Governor General to allow a new coalition government, and to refuse any attempt by Prime Minister Harper to adjourn Parliament until next year.
Syd
Subject: [CNS2] More Coalition Actions
Forwarded message:
I support a coalition that represents 62% of Canadian voters.
I believe that the negotiations necessary between these parties will lead to better more creative government.
It was a coalition of Liberal and NDP that gave us universal health care and the canada pension plan.
I believe that business as usual is no longer an option.
As Rex Murphy said Harper is either really stupid or really arrogant. There is no other option. Either way I don't want his grotesque hubris and bullyboy tactics as part of my government any longer.
Join the Progressive Coalition for Canada at http ://progressivecoalition.ca /
Sign the petition there and at Avaaz http :// www.avaaz.org/en/coalition_for_canada
Write to the Governor General and media with your support.
info@gg.ca
Write to media
take the Globe and mail poll
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
===================================
From: Keith Coghlan
Subject: Harper Government
HI Joe:
What interesting times we see in Canada.
Its ok for the Harper government to have the support of the Bloc to pass its programs in the past. However now that the support has changed Mr. Harper wants to wrap himself in the Canadian flag.
In addition he has decided to start fighting another election campaign by placing ads on TV and radio.
I vote in the last election to send a MP to work to protect Canadian jobs.
Not just the job of Mr Harper to shout down the Parliament because the Harper government will lose a vote or Mr, Harper is lose his job.
Is truly undemocratic action.
I want my member of Parliament to be at work.
Since the Harper takeover of the Progressive Conservative party and there move to government our political system has not improved.
What we have received is a very secretive and one man controlled government.
Keith Coghlan
Belleville Ontario
===================================
Dear Joe, I Please delete me from your daily digest. Canada is becoming like a bana republic with what is being proposed by the OPPOSITION parties. If I am to live in a socialist country I might as well go some where warm like----I could chose a couple of such places. Regards
===================================
From: "Beverley Smith"
Subject: Harper and red herrings
Layton said Harper should accept defeat gracefully and I think he meant graciously but he is doing neither. He is also avoiding the real issues of cutting funding to other parties and the threat he took back, ending pay equity, removing the right to strike for federal civil servants and failing to do anything meaningful about the economy. He is instead throwing in a bunch of self-defensive red herrings to wit
- that he stands for Canada and anyone against him is against Canada
-that the new coalition is rabid separatist. He is claiming that the Bloc, though not part of it has said it would vote with it on financial issues, is the leading figure, that the whole group is now going to break up Canada and apparently end civilization as we know it
-that mayhem and upset will result, with a dab of anarchy and that keeping him in power is the only way to sanity and stability
These are not the issue, and are false claims he is trying to trick people into believing. Clever tactic though a little high school.
It is time for him to admit that Parliament does not stand behind him enough for him to continue. Were he a stand-up classy guy this would be a great chance to say OK Parliament has spoken, you others try it and I"ll do what I can to help this country work. The fact he is not doing this does make a person wonder if the well-being of the country is his chief concern. It was supposed to be
Beverley Smith
Calgary
===================================
From: "M.J.' Butch ' Collins"
Subject: Re: RALLY FOR CANADA website
Joe :
I don't always agree with you , but , in this case you are absolutely correct .
Many people misunderstand our parliamentary democracy .
Butch
===================================
Joe, cancel any more correspondence to me.
You are running 180 degrees to the opinion of a MAJORITY of Canadians.
===================================
From: Lorimer Rutty
Subject: angst
Joe
What other country in our wide world has in its political structure a
taxpayer financed political party whose platform is the destruction of
a federalist system.
What other 'culture' has spent billions of appeasement dollars to
counter the said financed party.
The Canadian Parliamentary System is sick and broken.
Smart money says to let the 'coalition' win, let it destroy Canada
both internationally and domestically; let Canadians suffer and suffer
back to a sense of common sense.
Let the young activists who do not pay taxes influence the
'coalition'. When the economy tanks they can sell apples while
contemplating the merits of Republicanism.
My crystal sphere has a very dark corner!
Lorimer
===================================
From: Christian Giles
Subject: RE: RALLY FOR CANADA website
Hi Joe. I agree totally with your position. This gov't and this PM are continuing to undermine the institution of parliament by calling the legitimate actions of the opposition parties a "coup". It is no such thing and is further proof of Harper's agenda, which seems to be to undermine democracy in this country. His attempt to cripple the opposition parties by denying them public financing is also part of that agenda. The disturbing thing is that there are a large number of people enthusiastically offering their support and cheering this disgrace of a "leader" on. Hopefully voices like yours are heard loudly.
All the best
Christian
===================================
From: Michael Beach
Subject: Open Letter
To: ncc@nationalcitizens.ca
National Citizens Coalition
To call your open letter to the Canadian people " InflamaTORY Bullshit" would be undignified, so I will just say that I am even more impressed now as to how conniving, corrupt, and hypocritical the Conservative Block really is!
Michael Beach, Victoria BC
a supporter of honest and just government and a constitutional coalition
===================================
Subject: RALLY FOR CANADA
From: John Anderson
Hello Joe:
This is a very long post, for which I apologize. Nevertheless, I hope that you and your readers will find this useful and appropriate.
I fully support the letter to the editor included in your recent mailing condemning the concept behind the RALLY FOR CANADA website.
With great sorrow, I have to conclude that those who support the idea of maintaining the current Harper government in power at all costs are sadly misinformed on the nature and traditions of our parliamentary democracy.
There are some (too many?) people in this country who seem to think that we elect our prime minister directly. THIS IS NOT CORRECT!!
Allow me to deliver the twenty-five-cent lecture on how the Canadian parliamentary democracy works. And, just to be clear, let it be noted that the Canadian system of parliamentary democracy is significantly different from that of the United States.
In Canada, the Head of State is the Queen. The Governor-General acts for the Queen on all matters pertaining to Canada, so our Governor-General, currently Madame Michaelle Jean, is effectively Canada's Head of State.
Over long years, it has been established that the Queen, or the Governor-General in Canada's case, does not wield power directly, but rather acts through a Prime Minister, an individual.
At the same time, political power in Canada, as in any British-model parliamentary democracy, is vested in the House of Commons, which is composed, currently, of 308 members, one for each electoral district. The House of Commons then selects as Prime Minister an individual who commands the support, or the confidence, of the majority of the members of the House of Commons. And it is further our tradition that the Governor-General, on behalf of the Queen, will respect that choice and allow the Prime Minister to govern.
Usually, this process is short-circuited. A general election is held; one party gains a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, and the Governor-General invites the leader of that party to be his/her Prime Minister and to form a government. Therefore it only APPEARS that the voters elect our Prime Minister directly, and it is a sad commentary on the state of political awareness in this country that large numbers of voters don't seem to understand this very important fact.
Now comes the tricky part. Even if no party gains an outright majority of the seats in the House of Commons, it is still customary for the Governor-General to invite the leader of the party with the largest number of seats to become Prime Minister and attempt to gain the confidence of a majority of the members of the House of Commons. This results in a so-called "minority government". Usually it works for a while, but eventually members of the House of Commons will withdraw their support.
If the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, loses the confidence of a majority of the members of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister is obligated to go to the Governor-General and resign his/her position on the grounds that he/she is no longer able to exercise power.
In this situation, the out-going Prime Minister usually recommends that the Governor-General call a new general election, on the grounds that there is no-one else in the House of Commons who can command the confidence of a majority of the members thereof. Normally, this is indeed the case, and the Governor-General accepts this advice.
But the Governor-General is under no absolute obligation to accept such advice. It is important to understand that, in the final analysis, all that matters is whether the Prime Minister, the individual, can command the confidence of a majority of the members of the House of Commons. The question before the Governor-General is: if the current Prime Minister no longer has the confidence of the House of Commons, is there another individual that does?
Usually there are alliances among the members of the House (i.e. political parties) that make it possible for the Prime Minister to assemble and maintain support in the House of Commons. But if the alliances among the members of the House shift so that it appears that there is a different member of the House that commands the confidence of a majority of the members, then the Governor-General must, in the tradition of our parliamentary democracy, invite the leader of this new majority to become Prime Minister.
Indeed, with this understanding, one could make a very strong case that it would be anti-democratic and contrary to the expressed wishes of the voters as reflected in the make-up of the House of Commons for the Governor-General to do anything else. The fact that it might be in the narrow political interests of the out-going Prime Minister to have a new election is irrelevant.
Anyone who thinks that "this is wrong" is really playing with fire, because as soon as we declare our traditions in these matters to be "wrong" or even merely "inconvenient", we have opened Pandora's box.
Let me make two further comments. First, it has been suggested that Stephen Harper could ask the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament before next Monday, thereby allowing him to escape having to face a vote of confidence. I think that the Governor-General would wrong to accede to this request. Parliament is normally prorogued at the end of a session, when its business is completed. I don't think that anyone could honestly say that the business of this session of Parliament has been "completed". Indeed, I would suggest that, while the Governor-General does not wield power directly, he/she does have an obligation to ensure that the business of government is addressed expeditiously. Therefore if Stephen Harper feels that he is about to lose the confidence of the House of Commons, the Governor-General should refuse his request to, in effect, suspend government just so that he will be able to pretend to still be Prime Minister.
Second, the Conservative Party complains that the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition can survive only with the support of members of the House of Commons whose avowed purpose is to break up Canada. I have to point out that the members in question were duly elected to the House, and represent their constituents, in the same way as all other members. But I also note that, while they have agreed to support a Liberal-NDP coalition, they will not be members of any resulting government. THIS IS THEIR RIGHT!! There is nothing in the coalition agreement that suggests Liberal or NDP support for their stated goal of political separation. Indeed, I take it as a positive sign that they have apparently recognized that, in these troubled economic times, there is strength in union and that it is time to put aside differences.
Again, my apologizes for the length of this post, and my thanks for allowing me to get this off my chest.
Best Regards, John A.
P.S. I always find it instructive to "follow the money". Do you know, or does anyone know, who is funding "Rally for Canada"?
===================================
Subject: RE: BELOW(30) UPDATE
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"
===================================
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTSSubject: RE: BELOW(30) UPDATE
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"
===================================
From: "Michael Watkins"
The 30 million dollar savings is many things. First and foremost it is a
ploy to exploit in the event of an early election not of the Conservative
government's choosing. Equally importantly the $30 million serves as a
useful distraction to throw in front of the public, a diversionary tactic
to draw attention away from the fact that Harper and Flaherty continue to
mislead Canadians on the economy and on Canada's finances.
Y'know what, I was thinking of precisely this yesterday night. I sense that the coalition was premature in putting forth the $30 billion figure, and that it could be the thing that makes the whole thing fall apart. If it'd said that support would become available for whomever (say the manufacturing and forestry sectors for the Bloc (and maybe culture, too), the auto sector for the Liberals and the NDP, etc.), then it'd be addressing what was lacking in the CPC's Throne Speech, and doing no more. Now, by concretizing that huge figure, they've create a monster to deal with.
With their $30 billion in promised spending, the coalition's likely to get a GAAAAAAAAHHH! reaction from everyone. Thirty billion buckaroos? First, where in hell did that figure come from? Off the back of a paper napkin? Second: that's a HUGE amount of cash ... how fast would it be spent? If really fast (say 2-3 years), we'd be headed for inflation. If spread out over many years, then most of it wouldn't NEED to be spent because the economy would be back on its feet.
Add to that the fact that just two weeks ago the Opposition was raking the CPC over the coals for perhaps, maybe, sorta having brought about a small deficit for the 2008 fiscal year (which ends in March 2009). And NOW they're talking about throwing around thirty BILLION dollars?
The reckoning comes. Whoever gave out the $30 billion figure has made a HUGE strategic error that could be the thing by which it'll get hanged. Personally, I believe that this is EXACTLY what'll happen and that it'll prove the Coalition of the Swilling's undoing in the next two weeks. Stay tuned ...
Stratos
'Heeey. That's MY bread being tossed to partisan pigeons! Great circus, though.'
P.S. Steve-o's STILL a goner, though. This stomach-churning (and futile) unease that he's imposed on the CPC's MPs, members, and supporters, over the past few years has gone on for too long, without decent results. It's one thing to be brutal in one's dealings, it's another to be brutish.
P.P.S. Given the above, I stand behind my prognostications even MORE. Things will heat up over the $30 billion thing, the Bloc will reconsider its 'democratic role and duty', and the Bloc will leave the Liberals and NDP twisting in the wind while it itself runs off with a sizeable prize extorted from the CPC (e.g., $$$ for the manufacturing and forestry sectors, and maybe the cultural one too).
P.P.P.S. And if the CPC's clever enough to figure this all out, the Liberals could get crippled for a long time because of their fiscal irresponsibility. It's in the nature of the Bloc and the NDP to extort $$$ for their pet causes, since they have to get whatever they can whenever they can: they'll never be in power, after all. But for the LIBERALS to do so ... ciao ciao the good will they've built up by clobbering the federal government's debt.
Not to mention that this will be the second time that they've proven willing to throw money away to get out of a fix they're in. The first time, when they caved in to the NDP's demand for $4.3 billion in order to secure their support for the 2005-2006 budget was bad enough. This time, the kitty's up to THIRTY billion ... talk about a double-dare! If the CPC's smart about this (and, let's face it, that's open to question), they could damage the Liberals, long-term and lastingly. As for damaging the Bloc and the NDP ... well, there'll always be a role for specialty-boutique parties.
===================================
From: "Don Keir"
Subject: Re: Daily Digest November 27, 2008
I guess this is a comment to reply to Stratos.
You seem to imply that banks and oil companies are making only 4% on their investment. But there is something here that doesn't add up. Some time ago the oil companies seemed to be operating quite happily on $40 to $50 per barrel for oil, but for the past year that price has probably averaged closer ro $90 to $100 per barrel. I find tears a little difficult. Perhaps the banks could open up their {pause] inner organs and supply a little onion vapour to help out.
Don Keir
Good comment. Still, though, the long-term trend is to low returns on investment. Plus, a lot of the profits from the recent past will find their way to new investment (offshore platforms, oil fields, refineries, maintenance, R&D, etc.).
As for onion vapour ... hahahahaha. I'm sure that they'll be happy to supply us with all of the gas we're likely to want.
===================================
From: "The Natroses"
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
To Robert Ede: As to your last statement: "isn't that enough to object to? wouldn't you prefer 308 thinkers bringing their constituents views forward? sort of like the original intention 1867?"
1. Personally, who cares what The Founders of Canada (TM) had in mind? They did what they deemed necessary and appropriate for their time. What have to do likewise for ours, with due regard for the future but NOT with overdue concern for the past. The past is a reality: it molds our way of thinking and our way of doing things. But the past is NOT destiny.
2. 308 thinkers ... I offer the US Congress as a counterexample of the desirability of having 308 free-thinkers loyal to no one but riding-members who select them, and to the residents of their ridings.
From: "Rebecca Gingrich"
Subject: DD
Another question to you: Would a coalition government supported by a
majority be legitimate or not?
To paraphrase: 'C'est legal, c'est legit". Unless the rules and laws are iniquitous, of course.
All parties operate under known rules, and they do so with their figurative eyes open.
Also, the rules aren't completely, obviously iniquitous. Mind you, they may not be terribly convenient for weak parties who seek to establish themselves (e.g., the Greens, Communists, Canadian Action, Natural Law, Christian Heritage, etc.) ... but they're far from insurmountable. Witness the Bloc and the former Reform Party, not to mention others in our past (Social Credit, United Farmers (did they ever have federal MPs?), Progressives, et al.).
There is none short of the grave - and no one knows what will put you there, eh?
For my part, I'm in a hurry to get where I'm going so I smoke asbestos cigarettes. (Hahahaha ...)
(Joke: No, I don't smoke ...).
From: Albert Opstad
To: "Harper Stephen J., Right Honourable, Canada Prime Minister " <pm@pm.gc.ca>
Subject: 1.75 dollars per vote per party
Canada Leader Stephen Harper:
Since you are looking at taxpayer subsidies to parties, I recommend that give this subsidy to all parties! To the fringe parties like the Christrian Heritage Party and the Canadian Action Party.
See what I meant by Canada's political rules not being iniquitous? Hahahaha ...
===================================
From: "Brad Thomson"
To: mackay.p@parl.gc.ca
Cc: joe.hueglin@bellnet.ca
Peter,
Perhaps you should consider starting a new Party, a good name might be the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Brad Thomson
Personally, given the sad show in Ottawa right now, I'd be open to establishing the 'Parti pour Dix Minutes', which translates to 'Gone for Ten Minutes' while playing on the word 'parti' (party, gone). I'm sure that some clever sould could come up with something that'll work in English too.
From: "Gail Walsh"
Subject: Have you seen some of these comments especially
Magnuson from Montreal, Canada writes: I'm conservative - not the religous hard core, give twelve year olds the death penalty type, but conservative. I've really been struggling with the party over the past 18 months. Silly partisan decision after silly partisan decision. These guys just don't get it. Now this. Conservative decision makers and I know you read these things: smarten the heck up. You're in a minority parliament, which requires you to not act like a bunch of arrogant jackasses. I'd like to submit that now is time for Mr. Harper to think about moving on. He's done tremendous good for the movement over the past 3 years, but he's brought it as far as he could, and now he's so exhausted for his efforts he's making incredulous and infantile decisions that are hurting us. Mr. PM, take that long walk in the woods, and please do us all a huge favour. Take Mr. Baird and Pollivere with you. They're insufferable.
There ya go. I'm not alone in the 'Grow up, already!' wing of the party.
===================================
No comments:
Post a Comment