The DAILY DIGEST: INFORMATION and OPINION from ST. JOHN'S to VICTORIA.EDITORIAL PAGEs
ARCHIVED at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/
ARCHIVED at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/
ST.JOHN'S TELEGRAM -
Mills and milestones
HALIFAX CHRONICLE HERALD -
Year-end spending is no way to run a government
Spending accountability needed
SAINT JOHN TELEGRAPH-JOURNAL -
Israel's Labour Party sells out for survival
OTTAWA CITIZEN -
On being watched
Safeguarding the system
BELLEVILLE INTELLIGENCER -
Hillier not yet ready to lead Conservatives
TORONTO STAR -
People's agenda for G20 leaders
GLOBE & MAIL -
High-level damage control
War aims and misogyny
Abuse of office
NATIONAL POST -
American capitalism, R. I. P
HAMILTON SPECTATOR -
Where's the steady hand?
ST. CATHARINES STANDARD -
Civil servant pay must be frozen
K-W RECORD -
Collision course in the auto sector
WINDSOR STAR -
Open skies' benefits consumers
THUNDER BAY CHRONICLE JOURNAL -
On the sunny side of life
WINNIPEG FREE PRESS -
Remove two-fers carefully
SASKATOON STARPHOENIX -
Sask. quietly plows ahead in rough seas
Obama actions underline shift in U.S. economy
CALGARY HERALD -
Antiwar has taken on new meaning -- genocide
Firearms registry helps protect women
CALGARY SUN -
'Hard time' should mean exactly that
EDMONTON JOURNAL -
Ottawa goofs, Galloway gloats
EDMONTON SUN -
Trade talk from PM a smokescreen
RED DEER ADVOCATE -
I wish the newspaper industry was healthier
PRINCE GEORGE CITIZEN -
There's no need for cellphones in classrooms
VANCOUVER SUN -
G20 leaders should focus on more than their own backyards
VANCOUVER PROVINCE -
Suzuki's thesis is on thin ice
VICTORIA TIMES-COLONIST -
Pull the plug on phones in school
The dark world of political advertising
Obama drives reality home to auto industry
New government may face EU sanctions over two-state solution
Obama and Medvedev: Iran has right to peaceful nuclear program
AF-PAK PROBLEM -
Canada brokers Afghan-Pakistani border security deal
U.S. strategy in flux as 72 countries meet on Afghanistan's future
- Taliban say U.S. reconciliation offer "lunatic idea" Reuters (04/01/2009)
- U.S. Commanders Request 10,000 Additional Troops for AfghanistanThe Washington Post (04/01/2009)
- Outrage grows over Afghan rape law The Canadian Press (04/01/2009)
- 'Anti-women law' attacked BBC (04/01/2009)
- NATO in crisis over Afghan war Reuters (04/01/2009)
- Five Suicide Bombers Attack Afghan Provincial Council The New York Times (04/01/2009)
- Pressure on Karzai to drop sexist law Sydney Morning Herald (04/01/2009)
- International dismay as Karzai backs law ravaging women's rights The Globe and Mail (04/01/2009)
- Karzai under pressure to scrap Afghan women's law Marie Claire (04/01/2009)
- Top US Officer Calls 2009 'Critical' for Afghanistan VOA (04/01/2009)
We need borders without boundaries
Threat to U.S. a threat to us, Canadians say in survey
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS -
Economic fall fastest in half-century: Carney
Bank of Canada softens tone on further stimulus
CAW head renews call for content legislation
Chrysler halts Windsor plant
Co-ordinated global action calming financial markets, Harper says
FOREIGN AFFAIRS -
Harper seeks 'dramatic action' from G20 while lauding American leadership
Harper wins anti-protectionism commitment from world leaders
Harper under pressure to stimulate economy
HEALTH CARE RELATED -
Cancer labs no closer to national standards
OHIP rules changed for foreign workers
JUSTICE SYSTEM -
Trust fund set up for Alberta farmer charged with shooting thief
POLITICS IN THE PROVINCES -
Big bucks in civil service
Ont. PC leadership race shaping up to be a battle of the right-wingers: experts
Ontario now on the dole
Confusion swirls around Ont.'s harmonized sales tax
FEDERAL POLITICS -
Mulroney not a Tory any more?
Tory MPs split with Harper's office on Mulroney
Outrage grows over Afghan rape law
Harper 'deeply troubled' by Afghan move to limit women's rights
Jobless won't 'slip through the cracks,' says Ignatieff
Conservatives and Bloc Both Spent Close to the Limit in 2008
Tory MP admits he broke elections law
Iggy dinner to test True Liberal Love
The Commons: How do you solve a problem like Afghanistan?
Police should seize property of people who buy illegal smokes: Bloc critic
Liberals make their move
Tories introduce bill to kill gun registry
Canadian police want to keep gun registry going
Safety minister contradicts CSIS on torture
CSIS defies orders on torture
Ottawa won't follow warranty plan
Single emissions standard best for car makers, consumers: Prentice
PRESSURE POINTS -
Natural causes also responsible for global warming: Scientists
OPINION AND INFORMATION -
Only in Canada
Debate best answer to challenging ideas
MPs didn't care about homeless
Why Canada's Senate must be served
What if the Obama Administration Treated Detroit like Wall Street?
Outrage over Afghan law spreads to family of slain soldier
Summit of fools
Beware of medieval economics
Something that's worth whining about
The trouble with censorshp
Canada's just along for the ride
Automakers now just political orphans
Moving mountains or writing a big IOU?
A united Conservative party
Conservatives come in many flavours
Talk about a country's luck: We've got Harper and Ignatieff
Is Ignatieff the real deal?
Money fears blamed for jump in anti-Semitism
We're in Afghanistan for this?
Progress is becoming increasingly perverse
La querelle Mulroney-Harper crée des divisions
Armes à feu: les conservateurs tentent à nouveau d'abolir le registre
Le Canada versera 10 milliards au FMI
La loi afghane pour les femmes chiites continue de susciter l'indignation
Torture: le ministre de la Sécurité contredit le SCRS
Harper prône des investissements massifs
Une loi qui indigne Ottawa
Bombardiers russes Un « entraînement normal »
Sommet du G20 à Londres - Rapprochement Europe-États-Unis
- G20 de Londres: un éléphant qui accouchera peut-être d'une souris
- Une nouvelle page des relations de leurs pays - Obama et Medvedev remettent le compteur à zéro
- Réunion du G20 à Londres - La City subit le «poisson d'avril» des manifestants
- Les dossiers du G20
BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)No words of mine will consume your time tonight.
There are enough and more thoughts expressed below to fully engage your mind.
«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»From: "David Bell"
Subject: RE: Daily Digest March 31, 2009
Re: the following: There are three branches of Government:
I wuz there but
There's a helluva difference between the enabling legislation and the interpretive policies (with designed-in deniability) developed by a (Canadian or U.S.) Federal enforcement agency (Industry Canada, Heritage Canada, Health Canada, FCC, FDA, Trade & Commerce etc.)
1) Enforcement agencies do not do what they were intended to do or want tothey do what they can (with 10% of the budget they want)
2) Only the top half dozen people in the agency understand the difference (the others have religionthis comforts them)
The Legislative Branch makes law
The Executive Branch writes the REGULATIONS and at times rewrites them - and then as you point out these are then
enforced by the folk in the Ministry - at times with variance from place to place. One of the actions sometimes taken by Ministry workers before a strike is to "work to rule". I've always found this terminology tragicomic.
From: "Phyllis Wagg"
Subject: For DD
Harper Conservatives, please help me understand.
Prime Minister is encouraging Canadian banks to invest in foreign banking assets.
Just as when he encouraged Canadian investors to buy stock as the stock market floundered he is encouraging the banks to potentially take enormous risks in acquiring other banks, not subject to the controls that helped cushion the Canadian banks in the first place. What would this do for Canadians in general? Would it not weaken out banking system? Even if it turned out profitable it would only be bank executive and investors that would benefit.
In October the so-called "asset swap" Harper claimed that it was a way of ensuring that there was credit available for businesses and ordinary Canadians. Has that worked? If that policy has worked why is the government transferring assets to the Business Development Bank to open up business credit?
Would transferral of bank assets to the purchasing new acquisitions not make less credit available for businesses and ordinary Canadians?
Where is the logic?
From: "Jacob Rempel"
To Members of the Parliament of Canada:--
Let's ignore the vulgar ignorant comments by anonymous writers, but respond to the actual words of this George Galloway speech spoken in the honoured rhetorical style of Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English champions of compassion and justice for the innocent victims of big power politics.
--- Jacob Rempel, Vancouver
George on the Hour.
Update: Toronto speech
Update: Toronto speech
part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdaYpqpbrTw
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Woy2xJx7VPs
part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_ISjpTlGq4
part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdt-r6Mw51g
part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvc-eb4ym2g
From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: George Galloway speaks Mississauga
From: Larry Kazdan
Subject: Letter to Editor re: Kenney stands for Canada, Naomi Lakritz, March 31
Re: Kenney stands for Canada, Naomi Lakritz, March 31
Naomi Lakritz wants immigrants to adopt "enlightened Canadian attitudes of respect for other people's race, religion and basic human rights". That's why we should welcome newcomers but say ".... this is the way we do things --and the way we expect you to do them." However, Lakritz is a bit vague so here are some specific no-no's:
1. Canadians have a zero-tolerance approach to rudeness. That's why you should never insult the Minister of Immigration or your organization can expect retribution.
2. Canadians have a zero tolerance for hate speech. Calling foreigners "detestable murderers and scumbags" is not acceptable unless you're Rick Hillier, Canada's former Chief of Defence Staff.
3. Canadians have zero tolerance for torture or torturers. Exceptions made only for ex-Presidents of countries that are important trading partners.
4. Canadians have zero tolerance for terrorists. That's why we render innocent dark-skinned people to third countries for interrogation, just to make sure they aren't one.
Hopefully these examples will enable new arrivals to identify as Canadians, and to integrate Canadian values into their "moral fabric". We have met Enlightenment, and it is us!
620 E. 23 Ave,
From: Rebecca Gingrich
Joe--there is no reason for the CGC to exist unless it is for the Eastern grain farmer. The western grain farmer MUST use the CWB to sell their grain or go through mind blowing bureaucratic garbage to 'buy back'(sometimes at a higher price) their own grain. I well remember the farmer in leg irons and handcuffs arrested for donating some of his grain to a 4H club in Montana. He was treated more harshly than a murderer.
The CGC was not created to preven the robber barons--that was the CWB--to 'keep the country fed during the war' and it only applies to the Western grain farmer. The East, I guess, is not responsible for the country? And if you think that the robber barons are not in control through the CWB check out the Cargill site. They are proud of the fact that they are major partners with the CWB. I guess it is only good if the CWB gets to choose who are good robber barons?
My point is that the CGC will only support Eastern farmers because the CWB controls the Western farmer. Lets get rid of the CWB and only have the CGC. Lets have equality for all farmers. And I am sorry if you think it is ok to stomp on one segment of the population to benefit the rest. I think it was Karl Marx, Lenin and Trotsky who had the same philosophy. And we saw how well that turned out?????
From: The Natroses
Hi Joe, Back on the Internet, with a brand new desktop. I had a power failure with the hard drive. Thought this would be an ideal time to update from 18GB to something like 170GB. The other computer was over 7 years. It was a dinosaur compare to what I have now.
I am responding to Stratos. You are splitting hairs. Your comments on divisions - "This government and politicians not being the same thing really SHOULD have been taught us (and should be taught now) in school. My nephew in Ontario had a civics course in high school last year, but I don't know if this subject was ever brought up."
It is being taught in both social studies and history courses. Government is government including all the bureaucrats that can make our lives a living hell. If MPs were only there to make laws, and not over ride decisions of the bureaucrats, life for us ordinary citizens would be spent on bended knees, having little tyrants ruling our lives in respect to IE, tax decisions, child benefits. If you want present examples, our fish harvesters who sold their licenses and were made to pay income tax, except for 100 harvesters who got it back. It is an ongoing fight, and the bureaucrats are using every law to justify their actions. Another ruling, that was ongoing for the last 14 years was the sealers. Court finally settle it, and told the federal government to take a hike. Mind you it is my words, it was found that they were not guilty. If it was not for the lawyer working for free, the bureaucrats would have gotten away with another injustice. In either case, the MPs could have step in. Some did and some did not. What you state is perfectly true, "The thing to be understood is that in a properly-functioning democracy, especially in parliamentary ones, politicians do NOT call the shots: the government does, and the politicians set policy, makes laws and regulations, etc. In other words, the government consists of the Public Service, agencies, Ministries, the judiciary, etc., which does NOT include politicians, which make up the legislature (and Presidents in presidential democracies)."
That is in an ideal world. The reality is that politicians have the ability and the power to influence the day to day decisions made by bureaucrats. Since ministers are at the end of day, responsible for the running of their departments, they also have the power to hold sway over the bureaucrats. If the bureaucrats do not, their job is on the line. This is more so with the current government, who at every given opportunity will insert their right wing ideology in the workings of government. Galloway is the first one, who will be next? The ladies in the United States, who have been protesting since 9/11 and the Bush policies? Some French citizens, who are intent to help Quebec to become a full nation? Some Arabs, who may enter NL to discuss funding of the Lower Churchill hydro project? Or will it be the environmental activists?
Politicians come and go, but the bureaucrats stay. They hold the power and many of them have their own political ideologies and agendas, but to give border guards the power to determine who will be allow in, based on Harper's stance on Israel, is the makings of making all border guards little tyrants. All one has to do is to look at them cross-eye, and one is back on the plane. If the laws were used against Galloway, than the laws should be used against the Jews, who talk about how all Arabs are evil in order to justify their stance on Middle-East politics.
On a side note, Canadians are also being subjected to decisions made by American border guards, and have kicked out Canadians because they suspect that they are taking jobs away from Americans.
So Stratos, I am not sure if your cheering this decision of barring Galloway. If not, you should have made it clear that this in an ideal situation, and does not represent previous or current governments. When governments start to ban people based on ideology, a democratic government is no better than the North Korea government, or when Stalin and Lenin was stamping and stomping on their people. How many outsiders were allowed in to voice a different viewpoint. Not too many. When a government applies laws in an uneven fashion based on race, religion, political ideology, gender - that government is risking democracy in favour of a quasi-state dictatorship government, where democracy is no longer practice in the truest sense. Our freedoms are curtailed to the latest dictates and wishes of the government.
From: Ray Strachan.
In todays DD Mar 31 the entry by Mr. Ede regarding The Bible and the
question "What If" .I am not a servant of Satan ,should there be a Satan and
my job or wish is not to tamper with a persons Faith. I presume on true
believer will have plantgy of faith, enough, in other words to retain it. I
was sent off to Sunday School 70 years ago. Same Bible as today. Same message,
God Is Love. I have heard all my life "How Blessed We Are" . Why should I be
thrilled with that? Unfortunately having been born with two eyes, yes,I can
see the supposed blessings that some humans have had,but all these 70 years I
have been treated to the fact that human beings have been starved to
death ,Mothers watching their babies starve to death. But instead of the
Problem getting better it is getting increasingly worse. Then we are told
and have been told all my life that,"that is a sign of the end times", and
people have been told that long before I was born. So God is Love "I happen
to believe that,but not in the form that Religion Teaches it). I have been
taught all my life that "Every word of The Judeo, Christian Bible is The
Direct word of God". I will just throw out three examples of why God must have
a purpose in giving Himself some bad publicity, for instance,
God drowned every person on Earth, except Noah and his relatives and the two
by two animals. But he didnt do it quickly, slow,terrifying deaths over a span
of 40 days and 40 nights?
God summoned Moses and told him ,I want you to go to Egypt and tell
Pharaoh "Let My People Go" but Ill let you in on a little secret "I am going
to harden Pharaohs heart to the idea, and when he refuses "I will bring down a
Plague on Egypt". "Deception at its finest" but I believe we are taught
that "Satan" is the great deceiver. And to add to this problem God kept
sending Moses back with the same gimmick 7 times, a plague every time. The
last time the punishment was, "The First Born of Every Family Would be
God summoned Joshua. Joshua, I promised Moses some land for his people (The
Promised Land of course) but because Moses has died I want to fulfill My
promise through you. Take your people down to the river (Jordan) Send your
Fighting men over first. (My translation, Im giving you this gift of
land ,but, you will have to slaughter lots and lots of people to get it)
Are these examples describing a "Loving God" in our Judeo-Christian Bible?
Im sure this can be explained to me,but one thing I dont want to hear,ever
again, "Well we are not supposed to understand everything. Or Well you are
not to take everything in the Bible literally. Can the Religionists have it
both ways? No offense to you Mr. Ede, Im just using the DD to air my long
standing frustrations. I do need answers, the above examples and others, have
kept me out of every church I have tried to attend or join. They seem about as
far from "Christianity as is possible to be".
Subject: RE: Daily Digest March 31, 2009
From: "Efstratios Psarianos" <email@example.com>
Re: There are three branches of Government:
It is yet to be seen, should there be a court challenge, whether the Judicial supports the Executive in its decisions.
I dunno if there is any one out there who was in my classroom who can vouch that the above was taught in Grade X History.
Re. the court challenge. The article that I included last time said that the Federal Court had upheld Mr. Galloway's being banned from entry. In effect, this means that the Court ruled that the Government has done its job as required to by law. Should it have ruled against, I don't know if the Minister responsible (Mr. Kenney, presumably) would be able to ban Mr. Galloway in some other fashion (a security certificate, perhaps?).
As for the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary being 'branches of (capital-G) Government', that's a semantic thing. I think of Government as being 'Executive only' in my previous discussions; that's the concept I'm trying to put across, but the wording can be argued one way or another. As long as we understand each other ... but this ambiguity really should be worked out someday.
As for the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary (let's call then LEJ) ... they're not 'branches' of Government, they're functions that are distributed among the various groups (the legislature(s), 'The Government', and the judiciary). Americans talk of branches because they've explicitly set up said branches to be primarily but not exclusively responsible for some function. (The non-exclusivity is the 'checks and balances' feature of the US presidential system).
The US system is, at this moment, 'politically retarded' in the sense that it's based on custom and reasoning from Tudor England (the 16th century). At the time, the King's function were pretty much what a US President's is now, the Lords and the Commons were the equivalent of the present US Senate and House, and the judiciary was like the present US judiciary (with some exceptions in the details).
The King was responsible for running the kingdom and for patronage appointments, subject to the laws (including budgets) passed by the legislatures (the Lords and the Commons, which had to agree with each other on laws) but having the power to veto laws that were 'against the Kingdom's interest. In addition, the King had the power to propose laws to the legislatures for their consideration (e.g., he was responsible for drafting a budget (strictly speaking, an 'appropriations request', and then sending it for review, modification, and ratification by the legislatures), which the legislatures could pass or not.
The legislatures made laws (or took and modified ones proposed by the King) and monitored their execution, in addition to reviewing and approving Royal appointments (by the Lords). The procedure for creating, reviewing, and passing statutes ('legislated' law) was pretty much the same as the one in modern parliamentary democracies ... three readings in the Commons and Lords (Commons and Senate, in modern Canada) and then Royal Assent (i.e., the King's vetoing or not the law). In the US, the process is similar (I'm not sure of how many readings there have to be for a law to pass) but the President's veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority of something (the House? the combined House and Senate?).
The judiciary, for its part, didn't interpret law, it defined WHAT IS law. This was necessarily so because England (and later the UK) had no written Constitution. Instead, the Common Law, that is a set of practices, principles, and judicial precedents, was used as a proxy for a formal Constitution. Based on Common Law, judges determined not only what a law meant when applied to cases brought before them (they defined the law); they also defined what WAS law, based on Common Law, and whether a given statute was valid (i.e., 'constitutional'). Invalid statutes were ones that the legislatures passed but weren't allowed to by Common Law (abd possibly other Statutes?), and possibly other things (Magna Carta?).
The above describes 16th-century England and the modern US. Parliamentary democracy in Canada (and worldwide, in general) evolved from Tudor English methods to what we have now:
1. 'Legislative' functions are the preserve of legislatures, subject to Royal Assent, for which there is no overriding Assent not granted (so, unlike in the US, no overriding a veto). Legislatures monitor The Government's tasks and performance, and bring the Cabinet to account, but the Legislatures, in practice have no power to ratify Crown appointments (though the Opposition went through the motions (for Supreme Court appointments?) during Canada's Mulroney years). The Commons, if they lose faith in The Crown's program (that is, its Cabinet's program, see below), can call for a Motion of Nonconfidence. In practice, if such a Motion passes, the Cabinet then tenders it resignation to The Crown in the person of the King, Queen, or his/her Representative (i.e., Governor General) when he/she's not present in person.
2. 'Executive' functions, strictly speaking, reside in The Crown, which names a Cabinet to act as its agent. By law, the Cabinet must be made up of members from the Legislature (whether Commons or Senate) at the moment of selection and possibly within the near future. (In Quebec, a non-elected Cabinet member has to be elected within the six months that follow his being selected, else he has to resign ... the PQ's David Levine was named Minister in the early 2000s, and a few months later he bit the dust in a byelection .. he resigned when that happened). The Crown makes appointments, makes treaties, executes The Government's operation, dissolves the Commons (calls for elections), makes Court appoinments (including Supreme Court ones), etc.; in practice, in does this in accordance with Cabinet's recommendations. Thus, in a parliamentary democracy, 'executive' functions are those of the Crown, as mediated by its Cabinet made up of members of the Commons and the Senate.
3. 'Judiciary' functions are executed by the Courts, probably but possibly not exclusively. (Are Government Prosecutors considered to be performing 'executive' functions, or 'judicial' ones?).
All that to say: 'The Government' is The Crown and its Cabinet. And that in parliamentary democracies, institutions have non-overlapping functions to perform (although said institutions interact with each other), whereas US institutions all have overlapping roles that prevent one institution from monopolizing a section of power without another institution's consent.
Well done indeed!
- From: Larry Kazdan
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Letter to Editor re: Campaign rules must be policed, Editorial, March 30
- Re: Campaign rules must be policed, Editorial, March 30
- To: email@example.com