sir_springer

Mulroney, the West and the last laugh National Post December 23, 2003 Were the last 15 years of division on Canada's political right necessary? The disunity consigned the country to three consecutive Liberal governments under Jean Chretien, not one of which captured more than 41% of the popular vote. Each one gained a solid majority of Commons seats thanks to vote-splitting between the Tories and the Reform/Alliance rivals. Watching the unveiling of the logo for the newly amalgamated Conservative Party of Canada last week, it is only fair to wonder: Was there some way to avoid the schism that ensued from the creation of the Reform party in 1987? The short answer is no. Maddening and petty as this schism often seemed, its emergence was made inevitable by the events that preceded it: Preston Manning's feud with Brian Mulroney and then Joe Clark, Ottawa's 1986 decision to shift $1.2-billion worth of maintenance work on CF-18 warplanes from Winnipeg to Montreal, the Meech Lake Accord, Westerners' loss of faith in all the "old-line" parties, and Red Tories' contempt for Westerners all led to a very real regional split that could not be papered over with tactical appeals to unity. The CF-18 reference included in the list above may seem obscure to young readers. But for Western Canadians at the time, nothing better symbolized Mr. Mulroney's disregard for the region. Winnipeg's Bristol Aerospace Ltd. had not only made a lower bid for the CF-18 work than Montreal's Canadair Ltd., but also one judged by three government departments to be technically superior. It wasn't patronage the West wanted, but impartiality. The event demonstrated to Westerners that it didn't matter who was in power -- Liberals or Tories: Fair treatment of the West would always take a back seat to appeasing Quebec. The signing of the Meech Lake Accord six months later -- with its constitutional recognition of Quebec's "distinct society" and a veto over future constitutional change, but only a vague promise of some unspecified future negotiations over Senate reform -- merely added insult to the CF-18 injury. By the time Preston Manning convened his Western Assembly in May, 1987, to discuss what action the West should take, few in the region were in the mood for anything but a new entity, one beholden to neither Quebec federalists nor nationalists. That meshed well with Mr. Manning's personal ambition to create and lead a populist party. At this Vancouver gathering -- the precursor to the Reform party's founding convention in Winnipeg that fall -- the enigmatic son of long-serving Alberta Social Credit premier Ernest Manning laid out three options: Attempt a takeover of one of the existing parties, separate from Canada, or start a new federal party. Three-quarters of the delegates voted for the latter. Developments from there tumbled out of one player or another's ego. What was to be a purely Western-based party -- Reform -- expanded into Ontario in 1991 because Mr. Manning had dreams of becoming prime minister, not just the leader of an "NDP of the right." And it morphed again into the Canadian Alliance in 2000 because Reform could not make good on Mr. Manning's ambition. Interestingly, though, Mr. Manning could never bring himself to do the one thing that might have propelled him into 24 Sussex Drive: put the federal Tories out of their misery. An idealistic man, he was preoccupied with "doing politics differently." And so whenever Kim Campbell or Jean Charest or Joe Clark would stumble, Mr. Manning would hesitate to recruit talented Tories away from the older party or steal their donors, until finally the Tories regained enough strength that they could not be crushed or ignored. The Tories, for their part, were captives of their "red" rump after Mr. Mulroney resigned. And Red Tories, particularly Mr. Clark, were motivated more by keeping Reform and then the Alliance down than by defeating the Liberals, with whom they had more in common policy-wise anyway. Even in the recent merger ratification campaign, successfully stewarded by PC leader Peter MacKay, Red Tories agonized that they could not bear the idea of sharing a caucus with "those people." It was not out of sheer stubbornness or inaction, in other words, that the right has been stuck between gears these last 15 years: A very real dispute about regionalism led to the creation of a new entity with a new leader that, in turn, established its own equally real political dynamic complete with institutional jealousies and suspicions. Until Preston Manning and Joe Clark had left the scene, until new wounds inflicted on the West by the Chretien Liberals stung more than the old scars left by the Mulroney Tories, and until the Red Tories no longer dominated the PC apparatus, Canada's right was going to be divided. If Brian Mulroney knew back then that things would unfold as they did, would he still have treated the West the way he did? We're not sure. To our knowledge, he has never expressed regret for his disastrous treatment of the CF-18 service contract and his other mistakes. But in the end, there is a certain poetic justice in the way things turned out. As the 1990s rolled on, the locus of conservative politics moved westward, and the Tories languished in the Commons. Now, Mr. Mulroney's party is no more. And as for the merged entity that will spring from its ashes -- the Conservative Party of Canada -- it will likely be headed by a Western rights advocate, Stephen Harper. The complaint one now hears about the new party isn't that it will exclude the West, but the East. It might have taken 15 years, Mr. Mulroney. But in the end, the West will likely get the last laugh. © National Post 2003

Is there anyone more responsible for the sorry state of our military than Paul Martin??? And now his claim to legitimacy is that he's the one to fix it??? That's pretty much akin to giving your wife a set of wrenches to fix up your car that she just totalled. It's a no brainer that wrecking the damn thing is a tad easier to do than restoring it. Martin has been running a demolition derby as Minister of Finance for nine years... And now he has the balls to ask us to let him undo his own damn disasters??? The only thing more bizarre than that bullsh*t is... People are buying into it. Lordy, gimme strength.

Incredible the way they spin this stuff, isn't it? They're not even subtle about it any more. That the party doesn't even have a leader yet doesn't even bear mentioning. The notion of unbiased journalism in this country is so remote it's no more than a fairy-tale. Hardly a one of these gutless scribblers has the gonads to venture an original thought about anything. I see that Ezra Lavant is starting up a new magazine to replace The Report. Good. Will be nice to once again have access to some intelligent commentary and thoughts about Canadian politics that haven't been strained through the Liberal Left seives of the eastern elitist intelligencia.

Like I said... This is going to come down to: Bernard Lord, and "back to the future". The return of the CPC to the ways of the PC of old. Eastern domination and support of the status quo of Canadian federalism. Or... Stephen Harper, and moving the CPC forward with participatory democracy, true conservative ideals, and reformation of the federal system. You think Lord could give a rat's ass about Senate reform? Could give a rat's ass about reformation of federalism? Could give a rat's ass about provincial equality? Could give a rat's ass about reforming parliament? Paul Martin...Mr. Democratic Deficit...isn't going to change anything, that much is already patently clear. Same old Senate crap, same old rules of the game, same old same old. All this crap we're hearing right now is mere fluff for show and tell heading into an election. Liberals will never tolerate actual change to a system that insures that the deck is eternally stacked in favor of Ontario and Quebec. And neither will a CPC led by Bernard Lord. I'll tell you what westerners are thinking right now. They're watching all of this carefully. They're not buying into Paul Martin at all, despite the best efforts of the Liberal Left media to create the illusion otherwise. They're watching to see what happens to this new CPC. Is it going to be merely a return to yet another federal party that amounts to nothing more than the Liberals in drag? Or is it going to be something reflective of where the Reform/CA was trying to get to? Is it going to be about real change to federalism, and the mechanics of how this country functions? Or is it going to be a reverse takeover by eastern power, with the inevitable stamping out of everything that is important to westerners? There is a time bomb ticking away out here. Expectations of the Martin Liberals are virtually nil. Expectations of this new party are high. This new party fails to deliver... On top of the certain failure of the Martin Liberals to deliver... The proverbial sh*t is going to hit the fan out here like no one dare even imagine. The first indication to westerners that we've been had yet again will be the spectre of the elevation of anyone but a westerner, like Stephen Harper, to lead this new party. Such a spectre is already in the making. Only a naive fool could miss it.

Yep...and then walked away. Membership of the CA undertook to moderate policies, purposefully avoiding controversial issues like abortion and capital punishment. They also endorsed bilingualism and the principle of equalization. And they have repeatedly rejected attempts to introduce policies regarding hardline so-con pet issues. That this dreaded firewall doesn't amount to one iota more than what Quebec already takes for granted means nothing, either. Quebec is one thing, Alberta is entirely another. Quebec has 75 seats...and Alberta doesn't. Quebec means Liberal power...and Alberta means dick to the Liberals. Don't worry, I understand all too well. You know I'm right, don't you. What is it about this that rubs you so much? That, at the end of the day, we were still a force, and the PCs were on life support and fading fast? That we defied every pundit through three elections? That the PCs simply could not get it back together again, despite all protestations to the contrary by idiots like Clark et al? That, all said and done, we were relevant, and the PCs obviously were not? If the shoe was on the other foot...and be honest with me here...would you be worried about a PC takeover??? Of course not. You would think it was merely the way things ought to be, as if it was ordained from on high somewhere. Right? The natural order of things. The west being reminded of its rightful place and all that shtick. Ontario rules, kiss my ass, like it or lump it, and nothing you can do about it, either. It really seems to eat out a lot of asses out there that the west is still holding some aces in this game, doesn't it??? You think the federal PCs were presenting an effective "conservative" agenda??? Westerners didn't leave the PCs, partner. The PCs left us. I won't even mention the BLOC, eh? Harper will be there for the long term. Ah, yes. A return to the natural order of things prior to 1993. Westerners, mind your place in Canada. Don't call us, we'll call you...but keep those cheques coming just the same. And as for all you social concervative Bible thumpers out there...just shut up, okay. No one cares what you have to say. And yet you still wonder why the PCs blew all to hell in the first place??? Has anyone been more mature, more professional, or contributed more to dialogue in the last 18 months than the CA, or Harper? Certainly they did so much more than the Liberal Left media wanted to tell Canadians. Harper knows more about "conservatism" than the next ten names in federal politics put together that you could post here. And as Harper correctly has observed, if this party merely limits itself to economic issues, it will go nowhere.

Klein has not ever been a big hero of the Reform/CA any more than has Harris...which is pretty much SFA. Compromise??? Reformers have compromised so much since the earliest days of the United Alternative that, if there were medals for "Best Collective Effort to Kiss One's Own Arse", we'd take them all home in a sweep. The "firewall" comment don't mean squat. And no one is making a big deal out of it to Harper's face because they're not stupid enough to go there with him. He'd eat them alive. Yes, we are all too aware of how pure unadulterated crapola regarding the west is presented as the gospel out east, and how they suck it up like pigs at slop fest. That's their problem, not mine. Is this the "Reform Party with a few extra gaskets under the hood"? Hmmm.... Let's see now. For ten years, the federal PCs have gone from 2 MPs to 20 MPs back down to 12 MPs. Their membership, during the last leadership race, rocketed from something under 10,000 all the way up to 45,000. WOW!!! They're aoubt $5 million in the ditch, with no sign of daylight anywhere to be found. During that same ten year period... The Reform/CA went from 52 MPs to 63 MPs. Their membership hit highs close to 300,000 during the Manning/Day race, and 126,000 during the Harper/Day race. It was pushing 90,000 when this all came down. The CA, in 2002, took in almost three times as much coin as the PCs, from about ten times as many individual contributors...about 95,000 in total. Now, you tell me... Do you think CA members have a right to feel like they've got some damn serious investment and say in this new party??? When compared to what damn little was left of the PCs??? And do you think that now, after all of this, we should sit back and allow the "good ol' boys" stage a reverse takeover of the CA and stuff everything we've accomplished up our own asses??? Excuse me for being blunt... But I didn't just fall of a turnip wagon this morning. I can see what's going on here. It's exactly what I figured we'd see, too. Klein, Harris, et al... Where were they over the last 5 years??? Nowhere is where, lickin' their bags, and ignoring the whole damn works because they couldn't be bothered. Dissing Manning, snubbing Day, and...of all the unmitigated gall after all he has accomplished to the very end these arseholes were demanding before they'd lower themselves to even talk about involvement...trying to undermine Harper. Well screw them, and everyone that looks like them. They want a fight, then we'll give 'em one. Bring it on, I say!

Separatist associations??? Where the hell did that come from??? I've probably read about as much on Harper, or by Harper, as anyone...and I have yet to read one single word of any kind connecting him to separatism. Suggesting Alberta adopt the same sort of control over its own affairs as has Quebec enjoyed since forever does NOT equate to endorsing separation. As for Bernard Lord? He's got stars in his eyes and sh*t for brains if he thinks he's going to walk into this thing and carry home all the marbles in a cake walk. Harper represents the new and true face of conservatism, and Lord represents "back to the future". Is it not plainly clear that the "good ol' boys" club of the Ontario PCs is making a play for control of the new party? And that they see Lord as their last chance for a ticket to ride? Look at the slate of players involved in this shameless attempt to buy him off: Klein, Harris, Cherest, Mulroney, Hyder. I've listened to all sorts of tripe regarding Bay Street influence and money supposedly behind Harper in bringing about this merger. Let me clear up that crap for everyone. There is a power vacuum at the head of this new party. There are two factions vying for control of it: 1)The "good ol' boys" of the Ontario PCs and their affiliated allies. 2)The CA. The former represents big business and the status quo of Canadian politics and paternalism. The latter represents conservative grassroots populism. As far as I'm concerned, Lord wins this thing... The "good ol' boys" get the mine. And we, the grassroots, get the proverbial shaft. The spirit of the Reform, Manning, and the CA lives on in Harper. Powerful forces are lining up against him to take back what they think is rightfully theirs. Wake up people! This is for keeps, and there's no tomorrow.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/ Update: CNEWS Poll Which federal political party will you support in the next election? Total Votes for this Question: 8532 So far, 30% have voted for Liberal So far, 44% have voted for Conservative So far, 11% have voted for NDP So far, 1% have voted for Bloc Quebecois So far, 3% have voted for Other So far, 11% have voted for Not Sure

Then consider this one... Tuesday, Dec. 09, 2003 CNEWS Poll Which federal political party will you support in the next election? Total Votes for this Question: 7073 So far, 30% have voted for Liberal So far, 44% have voted for Conservative So far, 11% have voted for NDP So far, 1% have voted for Bloc Quebecois So far, 3% have voted for Other So far, 11% have voted for Not Sure

We dare enter into this next election with yet another rookey at the helm of this thing... And we will get our asses handed to us like no one can possibly even imagine. Martin and the Liberals will squash a rookey leader like a bug, without breaking so much as one bead of sweat. In which case, the big winner will probably be Jack "Don't Bogart that Wonderful Substance" Laidup. Frankly, I can't believe anyone...especially following what happened to Stock Day...would even remotely entertain such a bizarre notion. Prentice...or anyone similarly unqualified...would be Martin's wetdream come true. Probably gets a chubby thinking about just the possibility of it. Norman Spectre, on "Politics" today, observed that Harper is younger than Martin, is quicker on his feet, and...with considerable emphasis...is more intelligent. He predicted that Harper could seriously damage the man. He also included Layton in that assessment...except for the "intelligence" part. He said that Martin could find himself getting hammered from both sides, and might not fare too well for it. I repeat: This is NOT the time for a leader in training wheels. That would be nothing less than shear idiocy.

True... But I'm so damn good at this, he just assumed I would have been the closest, eh?

The CA gets a 95.9% endorsement on merger. And Orchard gets his peepee whacked in court. Works for me.

This one is a real potential truckload of dynamite for Martin and the Liberals. Harper has landed squarely on the side of a huge chunk of public opinion, if not actually led public opinion. Many people are very, very emotional and sensitive about this issue, and will vote accordingly.

Not to worry. Paul Martin will have an appropriate explanation for why he allowed this to happen. For example: On the gun registry: I could have done a better job on that one. On freebie flights: I'm not happy with how I handled that one. I suppose we expect... On the military: I guess I screwed that one up, too. My kinda guy for Prime Minister, eh? :angry:

Unofficial Results - 44 of 301 ridings reporting 350 Delegates of a possible 352 eligible (# of delegates / percentage) 306 YES 87% 44 NO 13% 1% Margin of Error Seems in Fundy-Royal, John Heron's riding, all 8 delegates are in the YES camp. Heron's reason for deciding not to join the new CPC, as I recall, was that he had no mandate from his riding association. Me thinks he perhaps was not being entirely straight up.

32 ridings in... 261 Yes 33 No 88.8% So far, one would have to say that this pretty much makes both Orchard and Clark look pretty stupid, eh? And Heron, and Sinclair et al. Goes to show that the average person doesn't worry much about stuff like "Red Torism". They just want a Conservative party that can kick some Liberal ass. Here's a list of ridings so far, copied from another forum: Here's a list so far of the ridings, copied in from another forum: Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot -8 Yes ON Pickering Ajax Uxbridge 8 Yes ON Trinity Spadina -8 Yes ON Kitchener Waterloo-8 Yes BC Delta-South Richmond-8 yes BC Vancouver East-8 No AB Athabasca -8 Yes AB Edmonton West - 8 yes NS Dartmouth - 7 Yes NS Halifax - 8 Yes NS Kings-Hants 6 Yes 2 No Oak Ridges -8 Yes Scarborough SW -8 Yes PRINCE EDWARD-HASTINGS, ON -8 Yes VAUGHAN-KING-AURORA ON, 6 Yes, 1 Youth Yes, 1 No NIAGRA FALLS 7 Yes Burlington 8 yes SK Wanuskewin 8 No SK Regina-Qu'Appelle 6 No 2Yes SK Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre 8 Yes SK Souris-Moose Mountain 8 Yes SK Saskatoon-Humboldt 8 No Lac Saint Louis(Québec) - 8 Yes T.O. Parkdale-High Park - 8 Yes NS Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough - 8 Yes Quebec Westmount - 8 Yes Kelowna - 8 YES Surrey Central -8 YES Dewdney-Alouette -8 YES Victoria -8 Yes Calgary Center - 8 Yes Ottawa West-Nepean - 8 Yes Ottawa Vanier - 8 Yes Mississauga West - 8 Yes Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington - 8 Yes Kingston and the Islands - 8 Yes

30 ridings 245 YES 33 NO 88.1%

Unofficially: Latest count... 27 ridings 181 YES 33 NO 84.6% The merger requires 2/3 of delegate support. Ridings that have voted predominantly NO so far... Vancouver East Regine Qu'appelle Saskatoon-Humblolt One Quebec riding in so far, voted YES. All Ontario ridings in so far have voted YES unanimously.

Such views certainly aren't unique to just the CA, eh? Will be interesting to see how the media play this one out, considering their treatment of the CA. And this morning Martin said Harper should have permanently gassed Spencer. Waiting now to see how he handles his own MP. ______________________________________________ Kilgour sees same-sex marriage leading to incest, polygamy But MP and junior cabinet minister must show backbone, moral leadership Paula Simons The Edmonton Journal Friday, November 28, 2003 Legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to the acceptance of polygamy and incest, says David Kilgour, the Liberal MP for Edmonton Southeast and the Secretary of State for the Asia-Pacific region. I spoke to Kilgour Thursday afternoon, the day after he held a town hall meeting in his riding, to explain to his constituents why he ducked a controversial vote on same-sex marriage in the House of Commons in September. For two months, Kilgour has been silent on the matter, refusing to talk to the media about why he failed to show up for the vote, or about his own views about gay marriage. On Thursday, Kilgour told me that he opposes gay marriage, in part because, he says, once the government made same-sex marriage legal, it would have no logical reason not to allow three people to get married. "So you're saying your fear is that gay marriage could lead to legalized polygamy?" I asked him, puzzled. "And, I'm afraid, and I'm not the only one afraid of this, it could lead to mothers marrying sons and all kinds of things," he responded. It wasn't what I expected to hear from a respected parliamentarian and junior cabinet minister -- especially not on the same day that Canadian Alliance MP Larry Spencer was disciplined by his party for suggesting that homosexuality ought to be recriminalized. Kilgour has always had a reputation as a maverick, a defender of the little guy, as a strong moral leader who stood up for his own personal values, as a social liberal, a friend to immigrants, refugees, the poor and the oppressed. But on gay marriage, he's been sending very mixed signals. While he's never supported gay marriage, he's never before come out strongly against it. When the Canadian Alliance moved its mischievous motion in support of traditional, heterosexual marriage -- a move designed to embarrass the Liberal government caucus which is divided on the issue -- Kilgour was nowhere to be seen. I support same-sex marriage. But Kilgour's behaviour seemed to me an act of hypocrisy. If he, and his constituents, were so opposed to gay marriage, I asked him, why hadn't he at least shown up and put his abstention on the record or even voted with the Alliance? "I told the prime minister I could not go and support his side of the motion, and frankly, I thought he was going to throw me out of cabinet over that," Kilgour told me. "We assumed that since I'd been ordered to show up for the vote, and I didn't show up for the vote, I would be out of cabinet. So I thought that was showing some backbone." Kilgour said that it would have seemed like grandstanding, if he'd shown up and abstained, or voted with the Alliance. Not coming to the House, he said, was the middle road, which respected the views of his constituents, who were overwhelmingly, opposed to same-sex marriage. "People who are married see that their institution is being deconstructed." But what, I asked him, were his own views? "My own personal opinion is a complicated one," he told me. "There are an awful lot of people who are gay who have suffered all kinds of abuse and what-not and a lot of them, I gather, attempt suicide, and that, as a parent, as a person, bothers me enormously. The last thing I want to do is to create a situation that makes that more common. But there are very, very few things in society that are really important, and marriage is very important to an awful lot of people in Alberta and in Edmonton and Edmonton Southeast." But it was then Kilgour raised the bogeymen of legalized incest and polygamy. When a respected Liberal cabinet minister compares a committed gay relationship to an exploitative crime like incest or polygamy, he gives aid and comfort to homophobes, whatever his intent. David Kilgour has built a remarkable reputation in our community as a moral leader. What a tragedy it would be for him squander that legacy now, when moral leadership is so badly needed. "I just feel that I'm to represent the views of the people of Edmonton Southeast," he told me. I'm not asking Kilgour to grandstand. I am asking him to show a some real backbone. He's right. The institution of marriage has profound significance to many people, straight and gay. We must treat it with care. But that's why we need leaders, not followers, politicians willing to put their principles ahead of their cabinet careers. [email protected]

Morgan... I guess I could have made my post a tad clearer. IMHO, Harper handled this, in the public venue, about as well as anyone could possibly have done. But, he went one better. He let his caucus know...and apparently in no uncertain terms whatsoever...that he's not going to put up with this sort of crap. Awesome! That's an aspect of leadership that the Reform/CA has been lacking since day-one. I think Harper will make for about the best Prime Minister this country has seen in many decades. That I think this is not that much of a secret around here, eh?

How did Harper really react to all this? An exerpt from today's Toronto Star:

For example... ___________ Report: Bill Gates tops list of charitable givers NEW YORK (Reuters) — Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates and his wife Melinda are the most generous charitable donors in America, Business Week magazine said on Thursday, as the couple gave away or pledged a staggering $23 billion — more than half of their net worth. In the magazine's second-annual ranking of the top 50 philanthropists in the United States, the Gates' are worth a net $46 billion — the rough equivalent of Hungary's entire gross domestic product. With the couple's having donated 54% of their net worth, Business Week dubbed them "the reigning royalty of a new class of self-made superphilanthropists." Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Intel, along with his wife Betty, came in a distant second with $7 billion given or pledged, the magazine said. Billionaire investor George Soros placed third, with $2.4 billion, or 68% of his net worth. The magazine's rankings also included philanthropic stalwarts such as Ted Turner (at No.8), the founder of Cable News Network, a unit of Time Warner; New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at No.11; and Sanford Weill, the chairman of Citigroup Inc at No. 23. Following is a listing of the top ten givers, according to Business Week, and the sopurces of their fortunes: 1. Bill and Melinda Gates, Microsoft cofounder 2. Gordon and Betty Moore, Intel co-founder 3. George Soros, investor 4. Eli and Edythe Broad, SunAmerica founder 5. James and Virginia Stowers, American Century founder 6. Michael and Susan Dell, Dell founder 7. The Walton family, heir to Wal-Mart fortune 8. Ted Turner, CNN founder 9. Ruth Lilly, Eli Lilly heiress 10. Donald Bren, real estate ______________________________________________ To put that amount into perspective: Assuming a population in the US of 280,000,000... To match that sort of charity, each and every man, woman, and child in the US would have to contribute $82 into the pot. In Canada, this would equate to roughly $760 per person. Now... Where would that $23 billion have ended up were it not for a Bill Gates being allowed to be successful? What is important about the Bill Gateses of this world is that they manifest what is possible, given opportunity. And generally, such people in return manifest remarkable generosity to their fellow man. Not to mention how one brilliant mind can totally alter the world, making it a better place for everyone else in ways untofore unimaginable. For example... The very fact that you are reading this particular post in the comfort of your office or home, partaking in an exchange of ideas, thoughts, and information potentially from around the world, and from people you would otherwise never have encountered... Is testament to what is possible when the Bill Gateses et al of this world are given opportunity and freedom to express themselves, and manifest the seemingly impossible. This is why free enterprize is the best system of social justice and freedom in the world.

333,000 Votes for Bert Brown is “Provincial Patronage”?? FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 20, 2003 Martin’s Western deputy dismisses Alberta Senate Election OTTAWA - It’s been five long years of waiting for Bert Brown, who was elected by Albertans in 1998 with nearly 333,000 votes to represent the province in the Senate. But Paul Martin’s Western Canadian talking head, Ralph Goodale, made it clear yesterday that Bert Brown will be waiting a lot longer with Martin at the helm. Goodale was asked yesterday if he expects Martin to appoint either Bert Brown or Ted Morton, the second-place finisher in 1998. It’s a good question, given that one Alberta Senate seat sits empty today, and another is opening in the New Year. Goodale’s response? “On the question of provincial versus federal appointments, I’m not sure the situation is dramatically improved by replacing federal patronage with provincial patronage.” Excuse us, Mr. Goodale, but Bert Brown’s 333,000 votes are not “provincial patronage”. Ted Morton’s 274,000 votes aren’t either. They are democratic mandates from the people. They are, in fact, bigger democratic mandates than your entire party received in Alberta in the 2000 election, when the Liberals garnered only 263,000 votes for all its candidates combined. Would Mr. Martin hesitate to appoint an elected Alberta Senator if that person had run under the Liberal banner? Would that democratic mandate be so cavalierly dismissed as “provincial patronage”? For decades, the Liberal Party has been dismissing real Senate reform as too complicated. It didn’t matter who the leader was - Trudeau, Turner, Chrétien - none were interested in making the Senate more representative of Canada’s regions, more effective, and most importantly, more democratic. It looks like Martin’s joining the club. http://www.canadianalliance.ca/english/new...D=2583&C=4&D=34 Anyone who believes Martin ain't your typical Liberal waste of skin is dreaming in technicolour.

The question, IMHO, is loaded. Both are attainable. It is imperative that people have opportunity to become whatever it is that they think possible. Communism's solution, in the simplest terms, is to make everyone equally poor, or IOW, to apply the same brush stroke to the lowest common denominator. In nature, all things are relative. Poverty or oppulence are only relevant within the context of being compared to each other. Black is only black relative to white. Up is only up relative to down. Light is only light relative to dark. The key prerequisite to life is freedom of opportunity. In nature, where opportunity exists, life flourishes. A seed can find roots in the most unlikeliest of environments, and thus manifest its potential. In nature, some seeds will land where the opportunity for such is virtually nonexistant. That is life. God does not distinguish between the two, He merely provides the opportunity...without judgement of either, nor anything in between the two extremes. Communism...i.e., socialism taken to its extreme...demonstrated that when opportunity is removed, life stagnates. And in stagnation, potential is diminished shockingly. Thus, we saw communism collapse into itself. All the best that has been achieved by mankind, be it invention or charity, has been done so in an environment of freedom, not just of speech, religion, movement, etc., but specifically of enterprize. Freedom includes both the right to succeed as well as the right to fail, and everything in between the two. I believe in freedom, and I reject dogmatic encumbrance of freedoms. The Bill Gateses of this world have every bit as much right to be as does anything or anyone else. And a thousand people oppressed of their freedom and opportunity will never do as much good for this world and the plight of mankind as will one potential Bill Gates or whomever of success and wealth.

Just came across this on another forum. Excellent read, and relevant to the question posed in this thread. Enjoy! ______________________________________________ Blaming The Victim The Genesis of the Breakup of Canada Paul McKeever The "break-up of Canada"? It's a possibility that the federal government frequently blames on secessionist leanings in Quebec and the West. But are these movements the cause of what ails Canada, or are they symptoms? For an answer, one need only look at the genesis of secessionist sentiments. Arguably, the genesis of Quebec and Western secessionist sentiments lies in the history of the so-called "Rule of Law". In theory, our constitution is our supreme ruler, and all --- including politicians and monarchs --- are bound to obey it. In 1867, the British North America Act (part of our constitution) ended a 27 year attempt to wash-out French culture by uniting Upper and Lower Canada. The BNA Act (now properly called the Constitution Act, 1867) returned a jurisdiction and undiluted vote to Lower Canada (therein re-named Quebec). It created the federal Parliament, which was given some of the legislative power previously held by the individual colonies. But, to the exclusion of the federal Parliament, it reserved to the provinces the power to make certain types of laws. Even today, our federal Parliament and provincial Legislatures have only the law-making powers given to them by the BNA Act. The BNA Act gives only to the provincial Legislatures the power to make laws relating to education and health care. And, until World War I, it was not contested that only the provincial Legislatures have the power to make laws that impose a direct tax (e.g., income tax, GST). But, in 1917, the federal government made a law that imposed a "temporary" income tax, purportedly to raise revenues for the war. In response, a Quebec civil servant named Caron argued that the federal Parliament lacked the power to make such a law. The result, in 1924, was a decision by our then highest court (see www.ownlife.com/tax/caron1.htm) that the federal government can impose a direct tax if it raises "a revenue for federal purposes" (like the military) , but not if it raises "a revenue for provincial purposes" (like education or health care). At the time, federal revenues were not spent on provincial purposes, so the income tax was held to be enforceable. However, subsequent federal spending on provincial purposes has put the enforceability of some federal taxes into doubt (see, for example, www.ownlife.com/tax/dmcsherm.htm or, in Consent #24, "Is the Federal Income Tax Act Unconstitutional?") In 1929, the stock market crashed. A great economic depression followed. As the U.S. Federal Reserve's Alan Greenspan explained in Ayn Rand's book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, the crash appears to have been caused primarily by inflation of the supply of government-issued force-backed (fiat) paper money. But, at the time, Keynesians, socialists and other authoritarians --- arguably for political reasons --- blamed the crash upon the free market. Promising to protect the poor with taxes on the "rich" and government spending programs, authoritarians in the industrialized world were voted into power: a welfare state was an easy sell during the depression. Authoritarian governments (in Canada, Liberals and Progressive Conservatives) essentially took away from individuals the freedom to make economic decisions for themselves, and transferred their power to a single, centralized government. In Canada, the division of taxing powers between the federal and provincial legislatures was seen as an obstacle to effectively centralized control of the economy. Moreover, with only the power to impose an indirect tax (e.g. a retail sales tax), it would have been difficult for a federal government to impose higher rates of taxation on those with higher incomes (as was eventually done). So, promising to pay off the debts of the provinces and to pay them a "rent", the federal government persuaded most of the provinces to relinquish their jurisdiction over direct taxation. The way was thereby paved for effectively centralized, authoritarian control of the Canadian economy. The constitution posed another pesky obstacle to centralized economic control. Specifically, until the rise of the authoritarians in the 1930s, governments had interpreted the constitution as allowing a government to spend only upon those things respecting which it could pass laws (e.g., the federal government could spend on criminal law, but not on exclusively provincial matters such as education; the provinces could spend on health care, but not on the military). Thus, the federal government literally invented the idea that its spending powers were unlimited. Making this bald assertion (an unlimited spending power is set out nowhere in the constitution), the federal government gradually circumvented the division of legislative powers set out in the Act by making so-called "conditional grants" of money to the provinces: provinces who dared not to make certain laws according to federal specifications would be denied their share of the grant. The federal centralization of economic decision-making powers posed an obvious threat to French culture in Quebec. The BNA Act had been designed, in part, to protect French culture by limiting federal power. Thus, almost from the outset of the authoritarians' attempts to circumvent constitutional limits on federal power via taxing and spending, Quebec protested loudly. It refused after the second World War to enter into tax rental and tax collection agreements. In the 1950s, Premier Duplessis struck a Royal Commission (the Tremblay Commission), the primary purpose of which was to demonstrate that only the provinces had the constitutionally-conferred power to make a law which imposes a direct tax. And, in 1957 (before he became a federal politician), Pierre Trudeau, addressing the issue of federal spending on universities, demonstrated the supposedly unlimited spending power to be a myth (see his 1968 Federalism and the French Canadians, p. 79: "Federal Grants to Universities"). But federal authoritarians continued their attack and dug deep trenches. In The Allocation of Taxing Power Under the Canadian Constitution (Canadian Tax Foundation, Canadian Tax Paper No. 65), then law professor Gerard La Forest recognized the limits placed on the federal Parliament's taxation powers but suggested that "the [words] of the [judges in the Caron decision] should probably be ignored. They were made when the device of transfer payments might still have been considered doubtful." He was later appointed by the federal Prime Minister to the Supreme Court of Canada, where he decided that, as a matter of policy, taxpayers should not be refunded money which is taken from them by means of an unconstitutional tax. On the spending side, federally appointed judges have stated that conditional grants to provinces are not under-handed attempts to circumvent the jurisdictional limits set out in the constitution. And, despite his earlier writings, Pierre Trudeau did not hesitate to engage in such spending as federal Liberal Prime Minister. The centralization of economic decision-making power was, and remains, extended and secured. Over the decades since the rise of federal authoritarianism, Quebec's struggle to have the federal government respect the limits of its own power bore little fruit. Many Quebecers, having lost much provincial power, fearing the loss of their heritage and culture, and losing faith in the idea that the federal government would once again respect the terms of union set out in the BNA Act, turned their gaze to the only alternative: taking back the legislative powers it had given up to the federal Parliament in 1867 (i.e., secession). If the federal government was unwilling to respect the stated terms of the provincial partnership, the partnership would have to end. The secession of Quebec could be very costly for the rest of Canada. And so it became the practice of the federal government to bribe Quebecers not to secede by giving Quebec relatively high shares of the federal spoils: by making the federal government seem indispensable to Quebecers despite federal violations of the terms of union. But that could not be done without providing the rest of Canada with a reason. So, rather than accepting any blame for separatist sentiment in Quebec, rather than telling the rest of Canada that federal hand-outs to Quebec were to quell the separatist feelings caused by federal circumvention of the constitution, Quebec was blamed. All of Quebec separatism was characterized as a movement born not of reaction to federal usurpation of provincial power, but merely of French bigotry and hatred toward English-speaking Canada. And the rest of Canada was duped. Today, most Canadians (including lawyers) know little or nothing about federal circumvention of the constitutional limits of federal power, but many people think of Quebec as a province of spoiled extortionists. A victim of federal authoritarianism has been successfully blamed, and Canada's biggest champion for the rule of law slandered. And, of course, federal strong-arm tactics in the West have added steam to Western secessionist sentiments. For example, any provincial talk of providing Albertans with quicker, better medical care through free market medical clinics is met with federal threats to Alberta's share of (arguably illegal) federal health funds. But Alberta, by taking such steps as decoupling its income tax regime from that of the federal government, is working steadily toward a more autonomous state of affairs. Whereas the secession of some provinces from federal jurisdiction (usually called the "Break up of Canada") is a clear and undesirable possibility, Canadians must not allow the federal government to make scapegoats out of the provinces. Clearly, secessionist sentiments in Quebec and the West are the result of federal Liberal and PC centralization of the economy (and the Canadian Alliance is following suit with calls for more federal funding for health care). Money, and the power to interfere with the free market, is the lifeblood of authoritarianism. In Canada, the federal government must continue to circumvent the constitution and usurp provincial power if it is to maintain its power to interfere with the free market. Such circumvention is --- to any intellectually honest person --- anti-democratic. Democracy is the process by which the governed determine the laws of the land: law is the only direct product of democracy. So, when a government refuses to let its actions be governed by law --- when, for example, it skirts constitutional limits on its legislative power and exercises unlimited force by virtue of an unlimited spending power --- the country ceases to be governed in a democratic way. Democracy is replaced with tyranny. That we vote our tyrants into power does not mean that we live in a democracy. What does this mean for the voter? It means that we must recognize that the survival of Canada depends upon democracy (by which, I am not implying majority rule). It means that, to regain and preserve democracy, we must elect only those persons and parties that are committed to respecting the constitutional limits of federal power. And, because an authoritarian federal government cannot meet its objective in Canada if the constitution is respected, democracy demands that we vote out of power our authoritarian politicians in the federal Parliament. Democracy and the abatement of secessionist sentiments require that we vote in favour of federal politicians and parties that will discontinue the practice of using direct taxation and unlimited spending to usurp provincial economic decision-making power. The break-up of Canada? If we continue to vote for authoritarian party members (especially in Ontario), we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.