hiti

Transcript of Poilievre interview http://www.thestar.com/Article/186154 Feb 27, 2007 11:33 AM Excerpt of an interview with Pierre Poilievre, Conservative MP for Nepean-Carleton, on CFRA Feb. 22. Question: Are the Conservatives then -- and I'm trying to get this right -- are the Conservatives then insinuating that the Liberal policy of wanting to expire investigative hearings and preventative arrests (is) being done so to protect the father-in-law of (Mississauga-Brampton South Liberal MP) Navdeep Bains? Is that the accusation? Pierre Poilievre: All of us are looking to understand why the Liberals have had this sudden flip-flop. We're looking for an explanation of their motives. Now we know that a lot of extremist groups and people with some very hard left-wing views have advocated for a long time that these provisions should be scrapped. Now a lot of those people supported Stéphane Dion in the leadership. A lot of them are in Stéphane Dion's caucus. And, for example, there are members of Stéphane Dion's Liberal caucus who want to legalize Hezbollah, which is a terrorist organization from south Lebanon. There are people in the Liberal caucus that want to shut down the investigation into the Air India terrorist attack, which is the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history. And up until recently, the former Liberal government was blocking the very anti-terror -- the very RCMP investigation and hearings into that Air India investigation. So, we know there are extremist elements in the Liberal party. Q: Is Navdeep Bains an extremist? Poilievre: I don't comment on individuals but what I would say is we know there is an extremist element in the Liberal party, generally, that has been very vocal in opposing measures that are designed to combat terrorism. And it would seem that Mr. Dion has collapsed under the pressure from those groups. Because that's the only way to explain his sudden flip-flop. Hear the full interview on the http://www.cfra.com/interviews/index.asp This is so over the top that it makes all Cons appear ridiculous. LOLOLOL I mean, how much lower can they go?

From your link; On the farm subsidy front, farmers in Europe received subsidies of about $6 a bushel, U.S. farmers got $2.50 a bushel, Canadian farmers received subsidies of only 40 cents a bushel. The farm aid rescue package of 1999 amounted to $1.5 billion, $900 million from Ottawa, $600 million from the provinces. Ottawa announced a similar farm rescue package Friday, for essentially the same reason, to battle foreign farm subsidies. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief appeared in Spencerville, Ont., to deliver the news.

Just stating what appears to be the perception by some.

Sounds like what Shrubby Bush is doing to his own country and in Guantanamo prisons.

The concept appears to be that by polluting, one can buy carbon credits which balance out the pollution. This is perceived to lower emissions internationally. Those who do lower their emissions and then sell their technology and carbons will be making money. I think this is a temporary solution for those businesses who need time to fine tune their emissions. They can buy credits and be within targets. This is not a long term solution.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has abandoned an election commitment to review and amend Canada's anti-terror laws to strike a balance between security and rights, Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said today. "This is rather ironic since the Prime Minister has recently made it clear that the rights of the accused are not something he feels compelled to protect. Nor does he seem obliged to accept the conclusions of the review he once supported," said Mr. Ignatieff. "If the Prime Minister's current actions are any indication, he was not sincere in his commitment to a balanced approach, and has instead chosen a path of crass partisanship. He owes Canadians an explanation." Mr. Harper's current position contradicts his reply to a Canadian Arab Federation questionnaire during the 2006 election, in which he claimed to support "striking an appropriate balance between measures that ensure public security and measures that ensure respect for rights and freedoms for individual Canadians" and said that "there needs to be periodic reviews by Parliament of the Anti-Terrorism Act to ensure this act continues to meet that balance." His election-inspired response also indicated the Conservatives would amend the security certificate process to ensure cases are presided over by a panel of security-cleared judges with training in national security issues. In cases where national security dictates evidence be heard in secret, the Conservatives committed to support the establishment of security-cleared lawyers to act as special advocates to protect the rights of the accused. In a recent Parliamentary review, Conservative MPs joined with the Liberals to recommend significant changes to the preventative arrest and investigative hearing provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act - including the limitation of investigative hearings to situations of "imminent peril." These recommendations have been largely ignored by the Prime Minister. http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?type=news&id=12273 Steve, Steve, Steve..... caught in another lie for his personal political gain. He will stoop to new lows to get his majority so he can remake Canada in his own image. Scary hidden agenda? You bet.

Conservatives Smear Conservative Supporter In Attempt To Justify Previous Smear, LOLOL Quote; Ralph Goodale on Friday accused the government of a possible security breach in the disclosure to the Vancouver Sun of the name of a potential witness in an Air India investigative hearing. In dismissing the accusation in the Commons, Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan revealed the government combed political contribution records of a university professor who raised a similar question and was critical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the media. Professor Errol Mendes, a University of Ottawa human-rights and constitutional expert, had said Harper is "blowing to pieces the integrity" of Anti-Terrorist Act measures by legitimizing a Vancouver Sun story that named the father-in-law of Ontario MP Navdeep Bains as a potential witness at an investigative hearing. Goodale had not even mentioned Mendes's name when Van Loan replied by naming Mendes, "who of course has been a very significant contributor to the Liberal party over the years." A spokesman for Van Loan later said Mendes' contributions to the Liberal party, listed on the Elections Canada website, were checked after his comments were published Friday. Van Loan was armed with the information in notes for question period. Mendes said the situation was "hilarious" since he was one of the few constitutional and human rights professors who support the government's wish to extend the investigative hearings and prevents arrest provisions that expire next Thursday unless the Commons and Senate vote for an extension. http://tinyurl.com/32fvh4 -end quote I also think this is hilarious....... and desperate. LOLOLOL

Read: Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248 Ahhhh... so that is why there was a sunset clause. These two provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act enabling "preventive arrests" and "investigative hearings" are an affront to Canadians and our rights and freedoms. Read the appeal to the SCC on these Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code and that will tell you that the only thing saving this bill was the sunset clauses. http://tinyurl.com/yusgwt The Montreal Gazette says: quote:These laws won't be missed. Given the uncertainty in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and fears that Canada could be next, they were an understandable reaction at the time. But the legislation marked a substantial departure for Canada - one that the government recognized by subjecting it to the sunset clause. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," said Ben Franklin more than 200 years ago, and his words ring true today. Now, the five-year sunset clause on the provisions - which have never been used - is coming due, and the Liberals have shaken Stephen Harper's government by announcing that "on second sober thought," they would reverse course and vote against extending their own legislation. Liberal John McCallum extolled his party's new-found respect for "individual rights" and discovered that "these laws are not necessary to protect Canada from terrorist threat." He is right. The laws allowing for preventative arrest and the provision for compulsory testimony are an affront to Canadian values and justice. Parliament is right to let the sun set on these laws.

Do the Liberals not believe in the SCC decision, or are they so arrogant to believe they know better than the court on matters of constiutionality?? Steve agrees with the SCC position. Where do you side? What was the SCC position?

Read his quote...... he said "his law and order" That is why Harper is still perceived as being scary and having a hidden agenda. Go back and read the link where Steve has changed the balance of the judiciary selection committee to where the government has the deciding vote. THAT is changing 25 years of precedence. Our judges, most of them, are in the centre and only interested in applying the law as it is written.

They don't need to be amended, the SCC has already found the admended section of the CCC in compliance with the Charter and democratic values. Rae said he's concerned Liberal position would seriously impede the investigation. He's the expert of all experts here, he was in charge of the freaking investigation! McLellan agrees, Manley agrees, EVERYONE agrees. Except Dion and bunch of ethnic MPs that may get in trouble with their constituants. Yes they agree on the extensions with revisions that protect rights and freedoms.......... except Steve don't agree on the rights and freedoms. So the vote must be no. See the Senate report.

False dilemma. Completely devoid of any reason. It has been posted here Steve's words.... where he stood up in QP and said that he wishes to appoint judges who will implement "his" law and order. You know that was said.

That's not what the Liberals are saying. Look at Bob Rae, who condemned removing these powers. And he's the former head of the inquiry, he might know something. Why do the Liberals insist on holding an opinion outside of the view of anyone that knows something on the matter? Dion is incompetent. I can just imagine Iggy, who's written extensively on why governments need these EXACT powers, is probably kicking himself having to support such an outrageous, not to mention dangerous, partisan point. Tell us the rest of the story.... Rae and the Liberals, as per the Senate report, will vote for the extension of the provisions but with revisions that would protect rights and freedoms, which Steve has rejected. So the vote on the extension must be no.

CP reported the same as Turner.

If Steve gets his way, Canada will turn away from judgments determined by centuries of precedence and 25 years of Constitutional law to reflect, in the Steve's words, his government's law-and-order agenda. Quote; These controversial changes to judicial advisory bodies are going to remove their all-important independence from government. The Canadian Judicial Council expressed serious misgivings yesterday about the fact that government appointees will, for the first time in the 19-year existence of judicial advisory committees, form a majority of their members. The CJC paper notes that the committees were created in 1988 amid widespread pressure to ensure that only highly qualified candidates were appointed to the bench, as well as to ensure that political patronage did not play a role in the appointment process. In 1994, the complement of each committee was increased from five to seven, and the federal government gave itself the power to appoint three of the members. However, this still left its appointees short of a majority. Besides changing the structure so that government appointees can swing any vote toward the candidate they favour, the CJC noted yesterday, another change will eliminate a distinction between categories of "highly recommended" and "recommended" candidates. "This raises questions about whether the most qualified individuals will continue to be identified for appointment," it said.

Garth Turner writes on his blog; PMSH lowered the boom on three senators in the past three days, stripping them of their committee duties, apparently for the crime of having brains that still function. Another talented guy with old PC roots, Michael Meighen, was also unceremoniously turfed by LeBreton as vice-chair of a committee after leading politicians on a trip to explore what’s happening in Afghanistan. And Segal’s crime seems to be that his committee published a major report critical of the federal government’s aid policy in Africa. The senator also stood up the rights of terror suspects being held in a Canadian prison, and voted against a section of Harper’s Federal Accountability Act. So, off with his head. As Liberal Senator Peter Stollery told Canadian Press, “Hugh Segal has been a terrific chairman, he’s a great communicator and I was completely astonished to find that only a few days after we tabled our major report he was forced to resign. You’ll have to ask him. I guess he was fired.” Of course, Senator Segal is too much the gentleman, and far too Tory, to dump on his political leadership. He’s quoted as saying the loss of his position is all just due to administrative changes. But there’s a pattern here. Let’s hope Canadians discern it in time. -end quote More from CP; http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/070221/n0221127A.html Stevie just can't stand anyone disagreeing with him. LOLOLOLOL

Liberals question PMO role in leak http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185323 Ralph Goodale demands to know `who in the government is responsible' for `premeditated slander' against MP Bains Feb 24, 2007 04:30 AM bruce campion-smith ottawa bureau OTTAWA–Federal Liberals are questioning whether officials in the Prime Minister's Office are responsible for the "politically convenient" leak of security information that caused a furor in the Commons this week. The revelation that the father-in-law of Liberal MP Navdeep Bains is reportedly on the RCMP's list of potential witnesses for an investigative hearing into the Air India bombing may have even broken the law, Liberal MP Ralph Goodale said yesterday. "We have seen here the disclosure of secret security information to personally smear a member of Parliament. Canadians need to know who in the government is responsible," Goodale (Wascana) said in question period. In question period, Goodale noted Harper's staff distributed copies of the newspaper story to reporters on Parliament Hill Wednesday. "From beginning to end, this was contrived, premeditated slander," he said. "So let us go right to the source. Who in the government disclosed secret security information? Was it or was it not the Prime Minister's Office?" he asked. -end quote So this was an orchestrated drive-by-smear by Steve and his PMO. Nice one.

The Liberal Sikh MP Baines’ father-in-law already was questioned many years ago and will NOT avoid questioning on the Air India matter if the terrorism provisions aren't renewed. Besides those provisions are only five years old and were not intended to be used retroactively so are useless in the Air India bombing, which happened twenty or so years ago. The real question here is how this matter got sent to the Vancouver Sun? This is a serious breach of RCMP security. So why are the RCMP again being political? There is no way Baines must abstain from voting against these clauses. He was nine years old when his father-in-law was questioned. It was commendable how the Liberals prevented Steve from voicing the whole slander against the MP Baines. Steve had no right to read that slander, which was a security leak and it is good that he was forced to shut up. Interestingly at the same time Steve was attempting to read the slanderous VS article during QP, his minions were sending out copies to all the news, media and journalists. So the excuse that nobody knows what Steve was going to say when he was cut off will not fly. Also the excuse that Steve was implying that Baines personal interest in the matter could jeopardize the decision over the anti-terrorist affair will not wash since the matter of Baines father-in-law being questioned by the RCMP happened around 20 years ago. Plus this clause that is due to sunset has no bearing on the Air India attack, since it can’t be used for crimes before its inception which was 5 yrs ago. This witch hunt of an innocent young MP was a deliberate move by Steve with malice intended. The Liberals are not supporting extending these clauses because they deny the rights and privileges of Canadians. And that is how all politicians should be. Steve’s calling the Tamil Tigers terrorists while their children are killed and their women raped by the Sri Lankan is typical. Is Steve stacking the Supreme Court??? Not directly but he has jiggled the nomination committee and appointed his partisans who share his oft-expressed desire to change the face of Canada's judiciary -- which he has described as a group that holds a liberal bias, oversteps its role to make social policy, and is too soft on crime.. But that isn't the worst of it. Steve has rejigged the committee by appointing a 4th member which means there are now 3 members from the law society and 4 members from Steve's side. Guess which side has the deciding vote!! Plus now there are only two categories, acceptable and non-acceptable whereas before there were three, very acceptable, acceptable and non-acceptable. And then he has the audacity to opine; "We want to make sure we're bringing forward the laws to make sure we crack down on crime, that we make our streets and communities safer. We want to make sure our selection of judges is in correspondence with those objectives." Hey Steve....... the crime rate has been dropping!!!! Quote: Did the real Harper stand up? Mr. Harper refuses to acknowledged there are sound legitimate reasons for opposing the kind of unfettered police power the legislation allows. Instead he is using the same tactics employed by the Republican Party in the United States — label anyone who raises issues of civil liberties or human rights as being ‘soft-on-crime’, or protecting terrorists. Mr. Harper is playing wedge-issue politics, exploiting people’s fear of the unknown and their belief that such repressive laws would never be used against them or other innocent people. It is absolutely incredible he can be so cavalier about this when less than a month ago he paid $11.5 million in compensation for the illegal and immoral detention and torture of Maher Arar. Mr. Arar’s ordeal occurred because of inaccurate information supplied by inept Canadian federal police officials. http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=13236&sc=102

And how did the "first" NEP destroy the whole world oil industry, lower world oil prices? How did the NEP cause the world economic slump and world wide production to drop? How did the NEP cause the stock market to slump? How did the NEP cause the technology market to drop? Stop allowing liars to feed you their baloney. http://www.seeta.com/articles/bubblesarticle.htm

Sri Lanka is no better than the Tamil Tigers. Quote: Tomorrow, a magistrate in the eastern town of Trincomalee will review eyewitness testimony against a dozen security force personnel implicated in the case. An unofficial report by the special investigator for Sri Lanka's National Human Rights Commission alleges that the security forces were responsible for the killings. http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile....statements/612/ In Sri Lanka's war on secessionist Tamils, children have also been the victims of indiscriminant bombing. In one atrocity, aircraft bombed a Jaffna schoolyard crammed with 750 children on their lunch break, murdering 34 and seriously injuring over 150 others. "Sri Lankan soldiers have raped both women and young girls on a massive scale, and often with impunity, since reporting often leads to reprisals against the victims and their families.." World Organisation against Torture "The Sri Lankan security forces are using systematic rape and murder of Tamil women to subjugate the Tamil population... Impunity continues to reign as rape is used as a weapon of war in Sri Lanka." Asian Human Rights Commission "..On average, a Tamil woman is raped by members of the Sri Lankan security forces every two weeks. The real number is inevitably higher since many cases are unreported. Every two months a Tamil woman is gang-raped and murdered by the Sri Lankan security forces." Statement by NGO, Women Against Rape, at United Nations Commission on Human Rights -end quote So now we can say that Steve and his conservatives condone terrorists as they side with Sri Lankans.

This is hilarious and right on the money. LOL Quote: But this week pollsters were doing only what the Harper team could have dreamed -- reversing the usual order of things. Headlines that could just as well have read, "Tories Go Nowhere Under Harper Leadership," instead gave the direct opposite impression, one of Tory surge. Two polls appeared. One had the Conservatives at 34 per cent, the other at 32. Thirteen months ago, they started at 36 per cent. Had you asked the PM back then if he would be happy with such numbers today, he would surely have fixed you with his studied scowl. But instead of his party's low polls, what was highlighted were his leadership scores as pitted against those of a relatively unknown Liberal leader barely out of the starting gate. And surprise, surprise, Mr. Harper far outshone Mr. Dion -- something at this point in time a bellhop could do. -end quote http://tinyurl.com/2a7xsp

That almost sounds poetic. It also sounds like Stephen-envy to me. Nobody could envy such depravity in a human, such pettiness, such a mean spirit. That is something to avoid.

This in today's Globe explains alot of the darkness of Steve. Harper's baseless and base counterattack JOHN IBBITSON From Thursday's Globe and Mail Court-packing equals anti-terrorism, equals Air-India, equals income trusts, equals a smear. This is as low as politics gets. And it proves that George Grant was right. The Canadian Judicial Council has warned in a communiqué that it will withdraw from the committees that vet judicial applicants, if the Tories use those committees to stack the courts. (That, at least, is the plain-English translation of the council's guarded prose.) Such criticism from the bench is extraordinary, so it's hardly surprising that the Liberals demanded in Question Period that the government listen to the judges and stand down. But Mr. Harper never defends against an attack. Instead, he counterattacks with greater force. Rather than answer the judges' criticism, the Prime Minister alluded to a story in The Vancouver Sun, which said that the father-in-law of Liberal MP Navdeep Bains might be the subject of an investigative hearing, as part of the Air-India investigation. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National

Oh yes he is!!! He took $1 billion from the lumber industry and gave it to his buddy Shrub Bush. He also took millions from low income earners, equality for women, early child learning, Kelowna accord, the environment programs, museums, pine beetle infestations, shelters and soup kitchens for the homeless ($70 million), literacy programs, plus much more..... And where are the funds now??? How much has he sent to Afganistan in brown envelopes for the war while ignoring reconstruction? How many $$$$ was the lives of our 46 soldiers worth? Steve is scum. Quote: "What he has done is immoral and he effectively reduced the role of the prime minister to that of a cheap demagogue." http://tinyurl.com/2ufurx Harper's dark side trips him up If this was but a slip of the tongue, it would be easier to accept. But the news releases streaming from the PMO at the precise moment Mr. Harper was unleashing his hullabaloo in the Commons clearly finger this as a premeditated operation. Mr. Harper should recognize that the political sons do not bear the alleged sins of the father-in-law when it comes to guiding policy in the Parliament of Canada. And there's no evidence that Mr. Dion was acting against the antiterrorist law to provide his MP's family with political protection. Mr. Harper should apologize and distance himself from the unseemly linkage quickly. But he won't. When his dark side seeps into the spotlight, being this Tory means never having to say you're sorry. http://tinyurl.com/2uuh8h

Steve is intent on destroying Canada's justice system (the highest regarded in the world) and replacing it with his own minions, Shrub Bush style. http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/Febr...7/20/c2380.html Judicial Appointments: Perspective from the Canadian Judicial Council OTTAWA, Feb. 20 /CNW Telbec/ - The Canadian Judicial Council released today an information document regarding judicial appointments. The document is intended to provide context to the process of selecting judges, which is of fundamental importance in our democratic society. The right to an independent and impartial judiciary is one that belongs to all Canadians. As the Council notes in its publication Ethical Principles for Judges, "Judicial independence is not the private right of judges but the foundation of judicial impartiality and a constitutional right of all Canadians."