Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Daily Digest November 13, 2007



The Southern Gazette - Stand by your man!

ST.JOHN'S TELEGRAM - A culture of piracy

OTTAWA CITIZEN - Securing the Hill 

         Protecting the office

         Patronage alive and well

TORONTO STAR - Full inquiry vital in Mulroney case

HAMILTON SPECTATOR - Infrastructure a voting issue

SUDBURY STAR - The decline of oil; Civilization will cope with shortage if countries start planning now

REGINA LEADER-POST - A needle necessity 

CALGARY HERALD - TB on reserves a national scandal
Same old studies produce the same old answers

EDMONTON JOURNAL - Market mayhem: Is the ground moving?

EDMONTON SUN - Senate needs to be elected, not abolished

LETHBRIDGE HERALD - Regulators caught flat by change


Rate of wounded on rise

Corruption rife in Afghanistan: President Karzai

StatsCan study finds multinationals help Canada

It's getting hard to find bad guys

Death by the light of a silvery moon

'Pain has become the remedy'

Health care spending to reach $160 billion: report

Prostate cancer mutant gene discovered 

Top court studies judges' right to cut binding sentences

Tories stalled in polls, Mulroney fallout may be yet to come

Dion's popularity goes FAR, as in restricted to family and relatives

Oops! Liberals, NDP got Schreiber documents too

Mulroney loyalist awkwardly personifies fallout of a political shunning

> Time for Dion to sit back and watch

> Conservatives and Liberals tied in new poll

> Harper's popularity soars

> Tory support dips after new Schreiber allegations

> Tax cuts fail to lift Harper's fortunes

                          L'affaire Schreiber

Harper announces full Mulroney inquiry


Harper can't win in Mulroney morass  

Senators seize on Mulroney affair

> Mounties launch Mulroney-Schreiber review

> Harper promises probe into Mulroney "scandal"

> PM to call public inquiry into Mulroney-Schreiber affair

> Text of Harper's announcement

> Mulroney calls for full-blown public inquiry

> Text of Mulroney statement

> Businessman admitted to 'useful donations'

> Mulroney-Schreiber affair expected to heat up Commons as MPs return to Ottawa

> Crosbie says his probe found nothing

> Mulroney-PM ties abound

> Mulroney-Schreiber letters raise questions of what PM knew

> Mulroney friends silent in his defence

> Chretien should explain Mulroney payout, minister says

> Tax cuts fail to lift Harper's fortunes

> Coming clean in 'electoral laundromat'

> Senate reform top of agenda for Conservatives, NDP, as Commons resumes

> Canada's air force cancels surveillance flights to the Arctic for winter

Lawrence Martin: Where was the PMO seven months ago? 

New bill to give Alta, B.C., Ont, extra Commons seats

Tories will seek to abolish Senate if reforms blocked

West should lead debate

Stewards of the land

Canada quickest to deal with terror suspects
British rights group lauds current limit for holding accused without charges

The revolutionary force of 'creative destruction'

Can we all just get along?


 Affaire Mulroney-Schreiber
Il y aura enquête publique

Fonction publique
Des procédures préoccupantes

Réforme du Sénat Prise deux

Marc Lalonde verserait volontiers une nouvelle caution pour Schreiber

Les conservateurs mènent les sondages; l'impact de Mulroney reste inconnu

Le gouvernement Harper fait fi de Québec et réintroduit sa réforme du Sénat

Mulroney se dit victime d'une campagne de salissage; Spector ne le pense pas

Harper fait fi de Québec et réintroduit sa réforme du Sénat



Tanya, our children and I invite you and your family to our

We look forward to greeting you on
Thursday, November 29, 2007
7 p.m. - 10 p.m.
for conversation and refreshments.
Entertainment to begin at 7:30
Kin Place Common Room
689 Main St., Oak Bank

We hope you will be able to join us on this joyous occasion!
Your MLA
Ron R. Schuler
Serving Springfield/East St Paul

From: Ron Thornton

Subject: Re: Daily Digest November 12, 2007

Hi Joe:

I have some comment spawned by the Monday Digest.  Brian Marlatt's letter to the Hill Times regarding the Senate suggests that some believe that B.C. and the West are under represented.  Brian disagrees, as do I, though for opposing reasons.  The division of the Senate to represent regions, rather than provinces, was flawed from the beginning.  If the Ontario and Quebec "regions" had been each subdivided into three or four smaller provinces, to emulate in some fashion the Atlantic provinces, rather than being allowed to become enlarged "super provinces", then Brian might have a point.  Unfortunately, they weren't, and he doesn't. 

Each province, again as illustrated by the Australian and American models, would be provided with an equal voice per region (as in political divisions), providing a balance for the smaller provinces to their larger populated  sisters.  That is not what we have with our Canadian model.

While on the subject of under-representation, it has often been cited that some provinces, especially Ontario, are short changed in the House.  Well, as any elementary math student should be able to understand, when any jurisdiction gets over represented, somebody is going to wind up short.  PEI should have one MP, not four, based on strict representation by population, and the combined Territories should be eligible for only one, not three.  It doesn't end there, as _most_ Canadian jurisdictions get more seats than they deserve.

We now have three provinces short changed in Parliament's House of Commons.  They are Ontario (12 seats short, with only 90% of its deserved seats), BC (5 seats, 88%), and Alberta (4 seats, 88%).  That means every other province and territory is over represented.  They include Quebec (3 seats extra, 104%), Manitoba (3 seats, 127%), Saskatchewan (5 seats, 156%), Nova Scotia (2 seats, 122%), New Brunswick (3 seats, 143%), Newfoundland/Labrador (2 seats, 140%), Prince Edward Island (3 seats, 400%), and each Territory (.333 of a seat, 300%). 
However, as some mental giant once determined that each province's MP total must at least equal its Senators, that problem won't get resolved any time soon.

Let us turn our attention back to the Senate, which was supposed to be based equally as to regions.  As pointed out, that plan was flawed from the beginning.  So, instead of having 10 Senators for each province, a system the Aussies and Yanks might understand and recognize, we range from:

4 for PEI
6 for BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland/Labrador
10 for New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia
24 for Ontario and Quebec

What a dog's breakfast that is.  Equality?  Not so much.  Not only does central Canada receive 58.8% of House seats, but also 45.7% of the Senate seats, just to make sure the colonies on the wings don't rock the boat.  As I said before, this nation should be called Quetario, comprised of the only two provinces that apparently matter, along with western, eastern, and northern territories that do not.  As for a chamber of sober second thought, I wonder if the Senate's originators were all that sober to come up with this half-baked, short-sighted formula.

Brian, the Senate and the House both need some serious reformation.  Add to this the fact our constitution originated as a flawed piece of British legislation instead of through a properly considered constitutional convention, and you see we got some work to do.


From: "John Dowson"

Subject: Mulroney

Reading the Saturday Globe and mail about the Mulroney affair and the connection with Robert Coute and Elmer MacKay it becomes painfully clear that Brian Mulroney was in all probability the architect of the demise of the Federal PC party. I believe that Peter MacKay was selected and hand picked by Brian Mulroney to become the leader of the PC party with the understanding that he would had it over to the Alliance. The leadership campaign went according to plan, but they hadn't figured on Orchard He was the fly in the ointment. According to the Globe Coute Peter MacKay was counseled by coute and I can only assume he was told to sign anything because the fix was in to join the Alliance. I believe that Mulroney was the broker, and the planner of the secret clandestine meetings of the Merger Captains in each riding and the fix was in. There were no discussions on the December weekend the papers were all written just waiting signatures. When it came to running for the leadership of the New party MacKay did not run, the question is why, who paid off his campaign debts, and was that the payoff of his debts the cost of leaving the new party to Harper who was the only person who could keep those yahoo reformers quiet. There you have it, speculative, but plausible John Dowson

From: "Dr. James Carson"

Subject: Legacies

   But why would the 'Progressives' care where the Conservative Party ends
up. From what I have seen 'progressive' and 'conservative' are mutually
excusive concepts. Although Mr Hueglin, as I recall self-described as a
conservative in the John A vein, and  refers to the party of Harper not
being the Party of John A MacDonald, history shows that John A and The
Progressives were diametrically opposed in policy. Progressives of the
twenties were for free trade, John A was against, and for high tariffs that
enslaved western farmers to the Toronto establishment. Now Progressives seem
to be Anti-free trade, anti-American, anti-capitalism. They seem to be for
unbridled socialism and Big Tax Big Government, central command and control
economy, but rail against Harper exhibiting any leadership over his party,
even though in the current discussion Re; Warner, it is clear that Warner
was determined to set his own policy agenda, contrary to conservative policy
and basically dared the party to do anything about it.

    And who calls themselves 'progressive' anyway? seems to be a very
rhetorical, empty, self-aggrandizing, and sanctimonious term; as in; "I'm
progressive because I say I am, therefore everything I believe is by
definition a 'progressive' notion, and anyone who dis-agrees is therefore,
by definition 'regressive'."

Should the rest of us change our party name to Regressive Conservative
Party? Regressive Liberals? Regressive New Democrats? (who are neither new
nor democrats, but that is another post. ;/)
carpe diem, james carson -vancentre

May or may not have time to respond
this evening.

Sol flies too quickly at times.


From: "Rene & Tish Moreau" <rtmoreau@idirect.com>

Subject: Re: Daily Digest November 12, 2007

To Joe;
From Rene Moreau (416-489-8347)

re; Brian Marlatt, White Rock, B.C. on the value of the Senate. ( Brian's letter follows at the end.)

    Since so many don't seem to understand the value of having a watchdog, or regulator who can blow the whistle when the government doesn't.

    Some examples of  self-regulation gone nuts.

1. The Investment Dealers Association.
2. The Hedge fund industry. (It would seem that everyone thinks that some-one else  regulates them, and the problem seems to be world-wide)

3.  The Canadian Bottled Water Association. with members such as  Nestle, (a Swiss company for food but American for Water, since NAFTA doesn't apply to Switzerland and NAFTA gives almost unlimited access to Canadian resources. Nestle has been charged 6 time in the States with major infractions, water-wise, with multi-million dollar fines, but here we give them self-regulation, even through the Environment Ministry of Ontario!

    Coca-Cola, guilty of many sins, (like accessing our tap water that the tax-payer paid to clean, and bottling it  and selling it for more than the price of gasoline)  world-wide, gets self-regulation here.

    Punch-line; the Federal and Provincial governments don't seem to know how the CBWA GOT self-regulation!
3. The development industry, made self-regulating by M.P.P. Chris Hodgeson of Lindsay in the Harris years, out of ignorance of the dangers therein.
    The list goes on and on, but you get the idea.
In light of the current wolfish nature of current corporate entities that seek to remove all rules and regulation, even to the point of getting much lobbying done, and planting moles in government to further their cause, from the inside, to con governments to give them SELF-REGULATION! I thought an Aesop's Fable would be in order.

This may also explain Jack Layton's and Harper's stated view to get rid of the Senate! Also, Hugh Segal's need to change the Senate.

The Wolves and the Sheep
                                                                       Some wolves were after a flock of sheep

                                                                       But could not kill them in their sleep

                                                                       Because of the dogs who stood on guard

                                                                       All night long in the big sheep yard.

                                                                       So the wolves sent a messenger to the sheep

                                                                       And said they should no longer keep

                                                                       Their dogs, which were, the hungry wolves said,

                                                                       The cause of all the trouble sheep had

                                                                       Especially with wolves. So the silly sheep

                                                                       Gave their dogs to the wolves, who started to leap

                                                                       That night on the sheep, and in less than an hour

                                                                       There were no more sheep for the wolves to devour.

                                                                                Sound apt, perhaps?

                                                                                Rene Moreau (416-489-8347)