canada2


Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March

My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


Bookmark this site!
Conservative MP Ted White slammed by Own Staffer
06.26.04 (10:08 am)   [edit]
"Dear Anna Marie

As discussed, I'm forwarding to you a copy of an email message which I received from Mr.Ted White yesterday afternoon. The email contains an attachment which outlines threatened legal action against the NS News based on what I consider to be a convoluted interpretation of the Elections Act and a bullying demand for additional coverage.
Firstly, I wish to acknowledge that I've been a member of the Conservative Party for many years. My family ancestors who arrived inCanada over 180 years ago, were also Conservatives. And for a brief time in the late 70's I actually worked in the House of Commons for a Conservative Member of Parliament and later a Minister.
The attached letter only served to remind me of my growing disaffection for our incumbent Member of Parliament. For some time now, it's been my strong belief that Mr. White's election was never so much a measure of his distinction, or his yet unproven ability to represent this riding, as it was a reflection on us, as a constituency which elected him. How did this happen? For example, when did we advocate for a 'Star Chamber' process where all Federal initiatives within our riding would be scrutinized by unelected and personally appointed representatives of Mr. White? Who are these people that would deny this riding's federally mandated share of community investments including Film Industry Tax Credits, youth job training and other life skills investment, for example?
When is the last time Mr. White ever visited a local Community Centre? I've been involved in many aspects of our community over the last several years, and have constantly had to deal with the 'White Manifesto' of denying any support for public investment in our community....of having to live with the "Scarlet Letter" branding of representing a dreaded 'Special Interest Group'. That our community has achieved so much in the last 10 years is a testament to the will and ingenuity of the hundreds of other community volunteers who continue to prevail despite the lack of any meaningful support from Mr. White.
As a neo Conservative Mr. White denies the historical Canadian legacy of community engagement, irregardless of the constitutional responsibility In the preparation of your usual election 'Profile Grid' you were absolutely correct in your notation that the incumbent did not respond to the question about achievements. His claim that he directed your attention to an existing or upcoming pamphlet was wrong and a lame attempt to either (a) overcome a dumb decision caused by laziness, or (b) an irrational and arrogant response from an incumbent MP with the most pedestrian, lackluster and insignificant achievements to show for a 10 year member of Parliament representing this constituency.
Just as he now defiantly declares that you have presented him with the 'straw that broke the camel's back', I too have come to a turning point. As a long time Conservative I no longer respect his constant denial of involvement in our local affairs, because of jurisdictional 'boundaries'. Using Mr. White's logic, the Provinces would be the sole players in the delivery of health care in Canada. I no longer respect Mr. White's obsession with his own variant of 'direct democracy', supported by tele-votes and unaccountable and unscrutinized polls, where majority rules dominate and Charter minority rights and freedoms become indefensible. Is this really how we want our fellow citizens across the country to know us? How can anyone forget his use of the 'Liberal biased North Shore News' when it came to his paranoia of losing his own nomination to members of the Iranian community, who he claimed had 'hijacked' the nomination process.
No, Mr. White has lost more than my respect. He's lost my vote. He claims that elections are simple sales campaigns......a competition of marketing ideas selling political 'products'. If this is the case consider me 'unsold', and I consider his banal analogies of our electoral process insulting. Being a Member of Parliament should be about leadership and humility. it should be about what you stand FOR.....not what you're constantly against. Trying to bully the North Shore News to do his bidding in the late stages of a campaign is nonsense. And on election day, this Tory will be voting for Mr. Don Bell.

Regards
Wayne Hunter"


2 Comments
 
Stephen Harper said the long version
06.18.04 (1:15 am)   [edit]
From http://www.canadiandemocratic...


"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack o­n our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." (BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

On being ‘libertarian’

“But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people.” (National Post, March 6, 2004)

Economic conservatism, Harper says during an interview in his Calgary office, is libertarian in nature, emphasizing markets and choice. Libertarian conservatives work to dismantle the remaining elements of the interventionist state and move towards “a market society for the 21st century.” (Toronto Star, April 6, 1997)

Child Poverty:

In 1997, Harper bragged that he was opposed to government programs to eliminate child poverty:

“These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)




Universal Social Programs:

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party…” (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

Bilingualism:

“After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn’t mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It’s a dogma which o­ne is supposed to accept without question. … [M]ake no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been...As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions.” (Calgary Sun, May 6, 2001)

Federalism:

“It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.” (National Post, January 24, 2001, “Open Letter to Ralph Klein”)

“If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away… This is o­ne more reason why Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. …Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous”. (National Post, December 8, 2000)

“[T]he Liberals still insist o­n meddling in provincial jurisdiction in areas such as health care, education, and municipalities ….The federal government should refocus o­n its core areas of responsibility, and allow provinces to define their own priorities for their own societies. … Stephen Harper would seek to recognize, through federal-provincial agreements, that areas of jurisdiction such as labour market development, forestry, mining, housing, recreation, and municipal and urban affairs are exclusive areas of provincial jurisdiction, and to adequately compensate the provinces for withdrawing federal spending in these areas.” (Federalism for All Canadians, Stephen Harper Policy Paper, o­neconservativevoice.ca, March 2004)

“Whether Canada ends up as o­ne national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with o­ne national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.” (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

On Atlantic Canada:

"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism," (CBC News, May 30, 2002)

"I think in Atlantic Canada, because of what happened in the decades following Confederation, there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome. …Atlantic Canada's culture of defeat will be hard to overcome as long as Atlantic Canada is actually physically trailing the rest of the country." (New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, May 29, 2002)

"There's unfortunately a view of too many people in Atlantic Canada that it's o­nly through government favours that there's going to be economic progress, or that's what you look to …That kind of can't-do attitude is a problem in this country but it's obviously more serious in regions that have had have-not status for a long time." (Toronto Sun, May 31, 2002)

“I've taken my position and frankly it's the same position that I took all through the [Alliance] leadership race. I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went, including in the Maritime provinces o­n several occasions, about the spirit of defeatism in the country and what drives it and how we have to address it.” (National Post, May 31, 2002)

On Canadians:

"I think there is a dangerous rise in defeatist sentiment in this country. …I have said that repeatedly, and I mean it and I believe it." (Ottawa Citizen, June 3, 2002)

“Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status…” (National Post, Dec. 8 2000 p. A18)

“Well I just want to assure you that those kinds of security concerns are widely shared here. Certainly the problems in our porous borders, our immigration system, there are things that we've been raising in the Parliament…Make no mistake, Canada, you know, with its limited resources, our soldiers made an adeq...admirable participation in Afghanistan…” (Interview with Sheppard Smith, Fox TV, September 13, 2002)

“…there is a continental culture. There is a Canadian culture that is in some ways unique to Canada, but I don't think Canadian culture coincides neatly with borders.” (Report Newsmagazine January 7, 2002)

“We've just become increasingly irrelevant to a country [U.S.] that has a lot of priorities…” (CBC Newsworld, July 11, 2003)

“I think in parts of the Prairies we are increasingly seeing similar views that there is no hope, there is no way forward, all we can do is negotiate with the party in power. So I think in any region where you have sustained under-development or lack of growth for a long period of time, this starts to develop… I'd say frankly, generally the kind of can't-do attitude is a problem in this country but it's obviously more serious in regions that have had have-not status for a long time.” (Toronto Star, May 30, 2002)

On Western Canadian society:

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)

Regional Development:

"We have in this country a federal government that increasingly is engaged in trying to determine which business, which regions, which industries will succeed, which will not through a whole range of economic development, regional development corporate subsidization programs. I believe that in the next election we got to propose a radical departure from this." (Global News, February 24, 2002)

Betty Granger:

Betty Granger was o­ne of three Harper leadership organizers in Manitoba. She is a past candidate from the 2000 election whose remarks about an “Asian invasion” created controversy:

“I’m not doing witch-hunts o­n people’s pasts… If someone does something wrong, there will be action taken. But if somebody doesn’t do anything wrong, we’re not going to take any action… I don’t make volunteer field decisions… but Betty Granger is a riding president, a member in good standing. She’s somebody that other members I’ve talked to think very highly of, and quite frankly, she was the victim of an unfair slur story in the last election campaign.” (Calgary Herald, January 15, 2002)

“Betty Granger is party president in the Winnipeg area and o­ne of a large number of party presidents that are supporting this campaign. So, I think this kind of thing is just kind of a low-level form of McCarthyism.” (CTV ”Question Period”, February 10, 2002)

Spending Cuts:

Harper incorrectly predicted that the annual cuts of up to $19-20 billion to federal expenditures proposed by the Reform Party would not be sufficient to eliminate the federal deficit:

“The proposals we made during the election which many people considered drastic, are probably not now adequate to deal with this problem.” (Montreal Gazette, November 30, 1993)

“I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. …I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.” (Hansard, May 23, 1995)

On the Iraq War:

“I don't know all the facts o­n Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.” (Report Newsmagazine, March 25 2002)

“We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.'' (Canadian Press Newswire, April 11, 2003)

“On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction. In our judgment, it was much more fundamental. It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems. … I think, frankly, that everybody knew the post-war situation was probably going to be more difficult than the war itself. Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.” (Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003)

“The world is now unipolar and contains o­nly o­ne superpower. Canada shares a continent with that superpower. In this context, given our common values and the political, economic and security interests that we share with the United States, there is now no more important foreign policy interest for Canada than maintaining the ability to exercise effective influence in Washington so as to advance unique Canadian policy objectives.” (Canadian Alliance Defence Policy Paper: The New North Strong and Free, May 5, 2003)

“This party will not take its position based o­n public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based o­n focus groups. We will not take a stand based o­n phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion… In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war o­n Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade.” (Hansard, January 29, 2003)

“While there are Canadians who oppose the invasion, Harper said, they are a minority, as are those who are anti-American. It certainly exists. But in fairness, there's an anti-American sentiment among the American left in the United States itself. We have some of that here. But that's a minority sentiment.'” o­nly in Quebec, with its “pacifist tradition,” are most people opposed to the war, Harper said. “Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive.” (Halifax Daily News, April 4, 2003)


"we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win" (Montreal Gazette, April 2, 2003)

On Taxes

“I will strive to make this not the highest-spending country in the world, but instead the lowest taxing o­ne.” (Speech at the Conservative Leadership Convention, March 19, 2004)

“We must aim to make [Canada] a lower tax jurisdiction than the United States.” (Vancouver Province, April 6, 2004)

“They (taxes) can be lower than the U.S. and that should be our financial objective.” (Canadian Press, April 11, 2003)

On being called a Tory:

"It's actually not a label I love. … I am more comfortable with a more populist tradition of conservatism. Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it." (Hamilton Spectator, January 24, 2004)


0 Comments
 
$1.75 per vote not a sure thing
06.17.04 (11:04 pm)   [edit]
Under a new Liberal plan each party will get a $1.75 per vote. This is designed to take the place of corporate donations, which have been caped. With this in mind, many people have justified not voting strategically on the grounds that if nothing else they are helping their chosen party out financially. The problem with this argument is that if the Conservatives, god forbid, win they will cancel such a plan.
2 Comments
 
Conservatives members attack the marginalized and Harper seeks to marginalize oppenents
06.17.04 (10:52 pm)   [edit]
Conservative members have a long history of attacking society’s marginalized groups. Pensioners: Paul Forseth called “Old age security is welfare for the aged.” The poor and students: Gary Breitkreuz called for minimum wage to be scrapped. The homeless: Peter Goldring said “I have strong concerns that we’re building shelters on a grander and grander scale.” The homosexual community: Stockwell Day said "Homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured through counseling." Refugees: Ted White “At east 40% of all the Iranians living there [North Vancouver] are refugee claimants. Most of them are bogus.” “They see all these … scumbags who come in using our refugee laws and claiming refugee status just so they can be criminals here.”

Stephen Harper, on the other hand, has a history of seeking to marginalize those who do not support his party or his views. Western Liberal ridings: "west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.” The Maritimes: Canadians. "There's unfortunately a view of too many people in Atlantic Canada that it's only through government favours that there's going to be economic progress…. [This] kind of can't-do attitude is a problem in this country but it's obviously more serious in regions that have had have-not status for a long time." Everyone in Canada outside of Alberta: “Alberta and much of the rest of Canada have embarked on divergent and potentially hostile paths to defining their country. Alberta has opted for the best of Canada's heritage. ... Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task. … Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous. It can revel in calling its American neighbours names because they are too big and powerful to care.”

0 Comments
 
Liberals and NDP one party now
06.10.04 (12:25 pm)   [edit]
There is no chance of Liberal majority. The Conservatives and Liberals are tied. 32% each. The NDP have no hope in hell of forming a majority. They are at 17%. The best case scenario now, is a Liberal NDP minority government. For this reason, I ask supporters of both parties to vote strategically; the Liberals and NDP are essentially one party now. If you are in a riding where the only parties capable of winning are Liberal and conservative, vote Liberal. If, on the other hand, you are in a riding where the only parties capable of winning are NDP and conservative, vote NDP. Finally, if you are in a riding where the only parties capable of winning are Liberal and NDP, vote with your heart.

NDP concerns about Paul Martin are ill-placed. The Liberals will not be able to pass anything nasty, otherwise the NDP will vote against it and the government will collapse. Furthermore, the argument that ever vote for the NDP will bring them more Federal money is equally ill placed. If the conservatives get in they said they would scrap such a system. It would be a shame if a small number of voters from either party cast a vote that gives a Conservative member a win in a two horse race. Do not cast a Nader vote.

2 Comments
 
Cheryl Gallant
06.06.04 (9:17 pm)   [edit]
From the Liberal Party website "Controversial Alliance Conservative MP has once again made national news for her irresponsible comments regarding Bill C-250 hate propaganda legislation:

“The danger in having sexual orientation just listed, that encompasses for example pedophiles. I believe that the caucus as a whole would like to see it repealed.” (Cheryl Gallant, CTV News, June 5, 2004)

In a tax-payer funded brochure Gallant sent to her constituents shortly before the election campaign she also attacked Bill C-250 incredibly claiming under the law the Bible would “be outlawed by the Liberal government.”

This is just the latest in a long list of bizarre policy positions Gallant has taken in her short political career:

· Gallant went way over the top in describing the firearms registry:

"Are we going to go like lambs to the gas chamber as the Chretien Liberals strip away our rights?" (Cheryl Gallant, National Post, November 21, 2000)

· The horse-racing industry was furious after Gallant accused the industry of links with organized crime during a speech in the House of Commons:

“Unfortunately, the horse racing industry is often penetrated by organized crime.'' (Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Press, August 29, 2003)

She opposed Liberal government plans to extend parental leave to one year”

“At first glance to women of pregnancy prone age, this proposal may seem to be one of the best things about Canada. However, even with the current six-month leave, a functioning uterus can be an impediment to getting a job in the first place. Were it not for the idiocy of the Liberals contemplating the extrapolation spousal benefits to roommates, it could be argued that parental leave discriminates against infertile couples -- but that may lead to the risks of extending parental leave payments to those who merely go through the motions!” (Cheryl Gallant, Fredericton Daily Gleaner, October 28, 1999)

· On Stockwell Day:

"We are on a mission to save Canada. …Stockwell Day has proven himself a man who will not recant his beliefs even under the most extreme pressure." (Cheryl Gallant, Toronto Star, February 16, 2002)"
0 Comments
 
Ted White Tries to Silence his Critics through Law Suits
06.04.04 (5:24 pm)   [edit]
I posted the following comment on election prediction project's webpage. Ted White: "At least 40% of all the Iranians living there are refugee claimants. Most of them are bogus." Someone else described White's comment as "racist" and said the Iranian community would not be voting for Ted White.

This appeared on the board today. http://electionprediction .org... "Mr. Ted White has threatened legal action against Election Prediction Project for publishing submissions that asserted certain opinion on Mr. White’s comment on the Iranian Community. While we disagree with Mr. White’s (and his lawyer’s) point that those comment constitute defamation, as a volunteer-run project, we are in no position to fight a legal case. Thus, upon consideration, we hava decided to comply to Mr. White demand, and hereby APOLOGIZE, and remove all those submissions. We would state without reservation that Election Prediction Project does not have or care to have a position regarding whether Mr. White is a racist.

We would like to publish the following excerpt from Hansard of the House of Commons. March 31, 2003 - Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): "My riding has the largest Iranian population in the country. At least 40% of all the Iranians living there are refugee claimants. Most of them are bogus." "They see all these, and I am sorry to use the word, scumbags who come in using our refugee laws and claiming refugee status just so they can be criminals here."

I found an old North Shore News article about the 1997 race. Ted White did not want his past discussed back then either. "Kinsella ... challenged White to a debate: "If he's (White) such a believer in free speech and free debate, why don't we have a debate about his involvement in a party that refers to people from the Third World as 'degenerates'.

Reached at his campaign headquarters and told of Kinsella's debate challenge, White said that his involvement in the WCC was known to North Vancouver voters prior to the last federal election.

'The people of North Vancouver have already heard the debate and they've made it quite clear which side they're on,' White said.

'I'd see a debate as a complete waste of time.'"

0 Comments
 
Conservative Comment
06.04.04 (2:08 am)   [edit]
[u]Betty Granger[/u], candidate: In November, 2000, Ms. Granger told University of Winnipeg students an "Asian invasion" was choking Canada's universities and influencing the West Coast economy. She resigned from the campaign.

[u]Brian Fitzpatrick[/u]: candidate: In the November, 2000, election theSaskatchewan MP said during a native-organized candidates debate: "You can't scalp me because I haven't got much hair on top of my head." He was elected.

[u]Ted White[/u]: MP ""At least 40 per cent of all the Iranians living there (North Vancouver) are refugee claimants”. "Most of them are bogus."

[u]Rob Anders [/u]MP: A former Republican who a Tulsa newspaper noted "personifies ... bad taste, deception, right-wing extremism and mean sprit” called Nelson Mandela a “communist and terrorist” and noted that South African was better under Apartheid.

[u]Peter Goldring [/u]– Homelessness Critic "The Calgary Drop-In Centre is considered the "Cowtown Casa Loma" of Canadian shelters, says the chairman of the special committee on poverty and affordable housing. (...) “I have strong concerns that we're building shelters on a grander and grander scale. I don't think there's a person in here who would expect these excesses.” (Calgary Herald, March 6, 2002)

[u]Vic Toews [/u]– Justice Critic “…Vic Toews says he'd like to go back to the good old days of tossing people into jail for unpaid traffic fines. "A number of years ago it used to be simply (if) you didn't pay the fine you went to jail," said Toews.” (Winnipeg Sun, July 26, 1999)

[u]Myron Thompson[/u], Justice Critic "Reform Party justice critic Myron Thompson has gone on the record as advocating corporal punishment for young offenders. He says that during his years as a school principal in Alberta, he saw remarkable change in behaviour among those who had ‘tasted a piece of wood.’” (Edmonton Sun, March 13, 1995)

For good measure, I would be remiss if I did not mention Alberta Tory MLA Gary Masyk.

Frank Magnize "Alberta Tory MLA Gary Masyk apologizes after saying he'd like to see repeat offenders sent to work in Russian salt mines and seemed to endorse Stalin's machine-gunning of strikers."
1 Comments
 
Kinsella Right; Telegdi Must Go
06.03.04 (7:41 pm)   [edit]
I question some of things Warren Kinsella says these days. He frequently makes Harper out to be kind of young Joe Clark, i.e., just plain boring. I do not know how he can call Harper boring. There are many ways I would find to describe the following Harper quotes, but boring is not one of them, nor for that matter is moderate.



[b]“West of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada: People who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western society” [/b]



[b]"Alberta and much of the rest of Canada have embarked on divergent and potentially hostile paths to defining their country.

Alberta has opted for the best of Canada's heritage -- a combination of American enterprise and individualism with the British traditions of order and co-operation. We have created an open, dynamic and prosperous society in spite of a continuously hostile federal government.

Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task.

Albertans would be fatally ill-advised to view this situation as amusing or benign. Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous. It can revel in calling its American neighbours names because they are too big and powerful to care."[/b]




That said, he is right about Andrew Telegdi (Telegdi compared Canada to Nazi Germany when a Jewish group pressured the government into deporting an old Nazi) Even if it means that a conservative wins his seat, I hope he looses. Telegdi is the second such Liberal candidate that I could tolerate loosing to a conservative or Bloc member, the other Lapierre.
0 Comments
 
Harper's Abortion Red Herring
06.03.04 (1:30 am)   [edit]
Harper threw out a Red herring the other day and a lazy and docile press took the bait. Specifically, he said the conservatives "will not be bringing in abortion legislation. We will not be sponsoring an abortion referendum." Of course, he would never hold a referendum on abortion; they will loose hands down. As for his suggestion that he would not be tabling legislation, this is just a smoke screen too. Harper said he would allow a free vote of MPs on a private member's bill; such a bill is all but guaranteed. This is the first thing should have caught the media's eye. The second one I already mentioned. He suggested that he would leave it up to the provinces to decide. I hope this caught the eye of female voters in Alberta.
2 Comments
 
Getting Youth to Vote
06.02.04 (11:43 pm)   [edit]
I think the solution is not making political platforms more attractive to young people per say. Anyway, this is very hard to do and still run an effective election campaign. There are some very large generational gaps opening up (e.g., gay marriage) and in so long as the under 45 crowd shows up in far fewer numbers than the over 45 crowd, the political parties have no choice but to pander to that older demographic. What I think needs to be changed is the answers people give to the
question “why vote”? Indeed, I do not think that we as a society have come up with compelling response to great numbers of young people who say that they find none of the parties appealing and so they are not voting. I think the only answer we can give is this: it is not so much who you vote for but rather that you vote. If young people start voting in greater numbers, the parties will start building the platforms around them.

Some people have mentioned that they are tired of all the candidates being 55 year old plus white males. Although I must second this, my response is, well, get off your ass. While the problem is, of course, wrapped in low voting turnouts among the younger generation, this problem is far less intractable. Young people should take a page from the book of many minority groups, join parties on mass and nominate the candidate of their choosing.
0 Comments
 
Your Grandparent's Government
06.02.04 (5:15 pm)   [edit]
According to stats Canada there are 2.62 million Canadians aged 18 to 24. There are 9.09 million Canadians aged 25 to 44. There are 7.29 million Canadians between 45 and 64. Finally there are 3.88 million seniors. 25.4 per cent of 18 to 24 years old vote. 54.2 percent of 25 to 44 year olds vote. 70.9 percent of 45 to 64 years vote. Lastly, 82 percent of seniors vote. If these groups vote in the same ratio this time around, the numbers break down like this: 8.35 million voters will be 45 and older and 5.60 million will be 44 and younger. What this means is that once again the parties will be offering up a Grandparent government. After all, that is where the votes are.
1 Comments
 
Harper and Abortion: let the provinces decide?
06.02.04 (1:39 pm)   [edit]
It is time people and the press start reading between the lines. A reporter yesterday asked Harper how he would respond if one of his MPs brought forward a private members' bill to cut funding for abortion. He responded by saying "I would oppose that. I think health-care money should go to the provinces for them to decide how to run a health care system.” The reporter did not think to ask the obvious follow up question. Namely, would he oppose a province (e.g. Alberta) that wanted to ban abortions?

Now, taken alone perhaps Merrifield’s comment does not mean all that much (Merrifield said that women must undergo counciling before undering an abortion), but given Merrifield’s past it should be setting off all kinds of alarm bells. After all, as health critic, he seems well positioned to become health minister if the conservatives, god forbid, were to win.

Indeed, it should not surprise anyone that Merrifield is staunchly “pro life”. He had this to say about stem cell research. “We asked to be shown why stem cells were needed. We asked why as a nation we should go to the place where human life would be destroyed for the sake of others. The science is not there. Scientists said they were needed because stem cells from embryos are more elastic and therefore they might be capable of being triggered to grow into any organ of the body. I challenged them by asking them to show us in animal embryos where that was a possibility. If it is a possibility then maybe we should go there even though it would be difficult for many Canadians to destroy human life for the sake of others.

Perhaps there would be some scientific validity to it if we want to change the ethic from where we protect human life from beginning to end, which has been a fundamental principle for Canadians for as long as Canada has been a nation. The legislation would change that ethic to “for the greater good of society”, which would change the ethic from protecting human life regardless of the cost. We should do the math and see whether we should proceed or not, and if it is for the greater good rather than the negative, then perhaps the math will be the guiding principle. If this becomes just about math, then we are on a very slippery slope in this nation. Not only will we be destroying human embryos, but as health dollars become precious in the upcoming years, we will be going to the place where we will perhaps be making decisions as to whether or not grandma should have hip surgery or heart surgery, or whether we look after comatose patients or the physically and mentally challenged individuals in our society.”
0 Comments
 
Harper undermined again?
06.02.04 (12:47 am)   [edit]
I am tired of hearing how this or that conservative member undermined Harper and how Harper had to bring them back into line. It was Harper that appointed Larry Spencer Family Issues Critic. (A conservative former Baptist minister, Spencer said homosexuality should be illegal.) It was Harper that appointed Scott Reid, who authored a book on how bilingualism should be scaled back, language critic. (Reid resigned after he said blingualism should be scaled back.) It was also Harper who named Robert Merrifield health critic. Just two weeks ago Merrifield said this about Ottawa's decision to make the morning after pill available without a prescription: "This drug is 50 times as potent as a birth control pill, and we're treating it like an aspirin.”

An FDA panel looked into the how safe the drug was. All 28 members concluded that it posed no threat whatsoever to a women’s health. Subsequently, the panel voted 23-4 to make the drug available over the counter. The Bush administration overturned the panel’s decision. A day later, two panel members were invited to speak on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. One of the guests opposed making the drug available other supported the decision. The proponent said that the drug was literally saver than Aspirin; her opponent conceded this.

Merrifield ludicrous attempt paint the drug as dangerous was particularly funny for in that same interview he said that "They [The liberals] laid it out there knowing it's a volatile issue, and they wanted someone to fall into a trap and to say something controversial” Guess what Merrifield the trap worked and it was you that they got.
1 Comments