The DAILY DIGEST: INFORMATION and OPINION from ST. JOHN'S to VICTORIA.ISSUES
ARCHIVED at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/
ARCHIVED at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/
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)From: "Suan H.Booiman"
Subject: A B C and the rest
The Reform Party and Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
are termed "legacy parties" of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Yes I have been and always will be a conservative,
was a registered member of Reform from day one,
my membership was changed to CPC, today I am
not a member anymore, discussed with what is
The dependence and desperation to bow to Quebec
at every hour of the day.
The new rules imply to me the rise of the
left leaning in the party, ruling from the top down
like labour unions.
From: Ron Thornton
Subject: Re: Disputation concerning new Nomination Rules
The actions of Mr. Plett in this matter are not surprising, nor does it seem out of character for him from what I remember of the old Canadian Alliance. The very fact the party insists of a two-thirds threshold of all living (or apparently dead) members to vote in favor of an open nomination process in constituencies that have a sitting member to trigger it makes a mockery of the democratic process the Party talks so much about, but does not appear to support.
It would seem more than enough to have a majority vote among members who vote to trigger a nomination process. If a sitting member has so little control or influence in his own constituency to win such a vote, then they should be vulnerable to a challenge. As the vote can take place at anytime, thus making it more likely that the membership will consist of those who have at least held their card for a few months (rather than a few weeks), the result would be a truer reflection of the will of the actual membership than even the result of a nomination meeting (with its newly minted, temporary, and often oblivious members).
There used to be a party that was supposed to stand against such bullshit, but unfortunately the Reform Party I thought I knew proved to be no different than this present Conservative Party.
And these clowns still are baffled why Canadians could not be bothered casting a vote. Not only are they undemocratic, they appear to also be retarded.
Subject: WHY this country it goes backward ????? RE: Disputation concerning new Nomination Rules
Looks like National Council is under VERY HEAVY and INFLUENCIAL PRESSURE to change the rules I joined this party, donated money and went to Winnipeg. There is something wrong. Basically it drives to despotism ..
I used to live under umbrella of the party which never made mistakes ! Communist party in Poland.
Two lines can may replace whole guidance or set of procedures:
- National Council (S Harper too ) can do whatever they want (S Harper wants). Or "your boss is always right".
When in Winnipeg I wanted to receive answers for the following questions McKay and asked them using microphone during "so called discussion panel"
- How many Canadians died in
Wo, Wo, : To many questions!!!!!!!!!! You HAVE TO choose max two !!!!!
But he did not that I was very active member of SOLIDARITY, even was locked in prison and kicked out of Poland
So my quick, politically uncorrect answer was very fast:
FIRST, SIR: Are we already living in COMMUNIST country????????????
SECOND, SIR: Answer for this 4 questions should be faster then my time to ask them because simply requires to give the audience 4 numbers !
It was wave of wow, ou, eh, in the audience
Moderator had no choice but ask McKay to answer.
- he missed 2 Canadians killed.
- dozens of schools were completed , but he is not sure how many
shame on him
- he does not care about taxpayers money how much the show he runs costs
- he is the liar: ONE school was completed
- he is liar to the power of 2: ONE teacher was trained
But unfortunately correct answers were sent only to ONE persons - about 500 trusts McKay and has wrong picture of the situation
So are you surprised what is going on, what kind of changes somebody wants to enforce into Conservative Party guidelines?
And next into LAW ???
Believe me >>> communist party in Poland was not so big liar as the rep of the "government" proved he is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And a soft, without the guts and vision, (scare to death to say NO! ) Kara Johnson "was placed" as a vice-president ??????
Why swimming pools in Toronto schools are even concerned to be closed ???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kids will "unload" to much energy in not always legal activities but gOVERNMENT has the answer: limit 16 to 14 to be penalized as adult !!!!!
Where this country goes?
End even more important question: WHY this country goes backward ?????
Subject: Re: Disputation concerning new Nomination Rules
At 10:35 PM 01/05/2009, you wrote:
You are a complete dickhead.
You are a dickhead because I can not unsuscribe (if I ever did suscribe) from your perpetual emails that have any bearing on any reality.
If you can not remove me from your email list immediately upon receipt of this response to your unsolicited email spam, then consider me an agent of the people/persons who you are trying to besmerch. Id est, I will forward your hurtful and disrespectful rantings to those you think are condemning, as well as those you think are supporting your cause.
My request for removal from your email list has been sent. Do it now. Non compliance will result in a civil litigation suit.
Removed at this the first request.
Subject: RE: Disputation concerning new Nomination Rules
From: "Bobka, Judy"
This process is a good thing.
It's a waste of time to hold a confirmation meeting.. when the MP is doing a great job.
The letters iwth ballots cause people to think about the MP.. count their blessings or work to cause a nom. race.
It does make some sense.
From: Real Gagne
Subject: Re: Disputation concerning new Nomination Rules
Those of us who formed the very first GUARD in attempt to prevent Preston Manning from making Reform a top-down institution can certainly appreciate the frustration of the Calgary West Constituency Association's little rumble with the oligarchy now running the Conservative Party.
Unfortunately, that is not the only case of interference by the party brass in the affairs of constituency associations. In the last election, the brass parachuted their candidate into a constituency just outside Edmonton over the objections of most of the board members of the constituency association.
My take on this is that the Conservative Party of Canada, guided by a number of party warhorses from the Progressive conservative Party has become just another top-down political machine who will do anything to get and retain power. This episode reminds me of the antics of the past masters of this sort of skulduggery: the Liberal Party of Canada.
These antics certainly do not encourage wide participation in the political process, something all of these clowns profess to believe in.
Will this convince me to abandon my support for the Conservative Party of Canada? It may well do so. Will it mean that I will shift that support elsewhere? Certainly not. As dysfunctional as the current Conservative party may be, the existing or proposed alternatives are, in my view, far worse, for any number of reasons.
So after more than a half century of continuous political involvement I may well find myself sitting on my hands come the next federal election, something I would have once said I would never do.
From: Ray Strachan
Subject: new nomination rules
Hopefully its things like this that will never allow Harper and McKay et. al.
forming a Majority Govt. Heaven forbid that it could happen.
From: Ron Thornton
On my way to bed, up pops your email and within it the comments of the Natroses in regards to my latest soap box recitation. They claim that a child should not be responsible for their actions. Nonsense. Should my sons throw a brick through your window, you can be sure my son will be held responsible. The degree of sanction would be, and should be, less than what an adult would face for the same offense, but my son would still be held responsible. Also remember that Omar Khadr was 15, not 5, at the time he lost his freedom, and likewise should be held responsible for his actions.
We seem to hold dear our right to raise our children in what ever fashion we see fit, but few take responsibility for those actions. If raising a Canadian-born child to be an Afghani freedom fighter is against the law, then why was that child allowed to stay under the guardianship of his parents when he made his few visits back to our shores? Probably because it is allowed or tolerated, which I agree is a damn shame but I still don't hear anyone calling for such a change in our laws to prevent such a thing from happening again.
I fully agree with the comments of the Natroses in regards to the responsibilities parents have, or should have. Having six year olds make decisions on their own abdicates one's role as a parent. When my own sons complain that Suzie or John of other families can make such decisions I remind my children that Suzie and John do not live with us, for if they did things would be different for them, too. In fact, I agree fully with much of what they say in regards to children having less life experience and less developed reasoning skills. On that, we are on the same page.
However, a 15 year old possess more of those skills than a 5 or 10 year old, though I admit teenagers are also much more easily led and manipulated. Should Khadr be held responsible for his actions? Yes, but I think it can be successfully argued that he has more than adequately suffered the consequences of the actions of his mid-teen years.
Should he be returned to Canada? On this I have trouble finding a reason as to why. He is a stranger to this land, more Pakistani or Afghani than Canadian. He should be returned to the homeland he knows, the one he fought for. He is a stranger to us, just as we are to him. However, if he can demonstrate that this is not the case, that he yearns to revisit his Canadian roots, to become part of Canadian society, to be Canadian and not just a Afghan freedom fighter using us as a safe haven, then we should listen to his argument. Sadly, though, I fear he may already be lost to us.
By the way, my view would be the same if it were a 15-year old fighting in Afghanistan or a 15-year old fighting in Africa. From what I understand, he was not forced to pick up the gun nor kidnapped from his family and brainwashed. He became what he was raised to be. Tragic but true.
From: WAYNE COOK
Subject: Re: Disputation concerning new Nomination Rules
In my 44 year political life, this is the kind of thing one sees in a party beginning to imp load. I have seen it in the Liberals and in Reform. Sadly, when any party looses the "Vision of Canada", it becomes focused only on power. I will follow the news.
From: Larry Kazdan
Subject: Letter to Editor re: If you torture, keep quiet about it, Peter Worthington, May 1
- Re: If you torture, keep quiet about it, Peter Worthington, May 1
From: alan heisey
j, natroses did much, much better than most of the population
including politicians if, over the past 18+ months they were only
dinged for 14% of their savings! they still sneer at the pols, who
from what i can see do not have any set of tea leaves which protected
their investments from the lowering tide! cz
From: The Natroses
Article titled, "Blame NAFTA for swine flu, experts say", has an interesting view on things, I can relate to it, because it makes more sense than a small group making a new virus specifically aim at the DNA of Mexicans. Being raised on a farm, chicken and pig waste, were no-nos where we were not allow to run around barefoot, and if we were near it, a through wash of a hands and other body parts were called for. Whereas, if we should be playing or handling horse or cow waste the rules did not apply to this group of animals. As stated in the article, "
Environmentalists argue lax regulations in the factory farming that boomed in Mexico right after the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and the U.S. are making people sick and not just with swine flu.
"You might call this the `NAFTA flu,'" said Rick Arnold, co-ordinator of Common Frontiers, a Canadian coalition focusing on Latin America and issues of economic integration.
He argues multinationals are getting away with dire conditions not allowed north of the border.
Environmental groups three years ago began protesting against operations at the Carroll Farms in Veracruz, jointly operated by U.S. pork giant Smithfield Farms.
The first confirmed case of swine flu originated with a 5-year-old boy from the town of La Gloria, near the farm. He recovered.
Medical officials have not pinpointed where the outbreak began.
And from its Virginia headquarters, Smithfield officials insist there is no evidence linking their operations to the disease."
It adds that, "The air in Mexico City, once called the "most polluted" by the World Health Organization, is loaded with human fecal matter, gases, dust and other toxic materials.
"The pollution affects our eyes, throats and lungs," said Dr. Erendira Gallardo Lobera, a general practitioner. She said the Mexican government should take stronger measures to ensure residents of the capital aren't breathing in rat and dog feces with their oxygen."
NAFTA, and the current government's pet projects in deregulation in all areas. Can we look forward to more factory farms of the pigs and chicken variety, where the nearby population is exposed, like the Mexican population? As consumers, we should demand the list of corporations that have operations in other countries, food processing done in another, and packaging in another. Many Canadian retail food, has only been packaged in Canada and the origins come from other countries. One can have a "made in Canada" label, when only the packaging has been done in Canada. Perhaps, it is the reason why there is such a cry from the big guys, when it comes to the new law that United States has, that all labeling of food must show the origin of food, and in particular for meat, which meat processors must separate the meat by origin of country before processing the meat. They can no longer hide under the NAFTA agreement. I just wondering how long before Canada and Mexico makes a claim against United States, for unfair regulations in the food processing industries? It should be interesting, and it could be Obama's way of destroying the NAFTA agreement, by helping it to self-implode or to change the fundamentals of the agreement where processing takes place, underneath a high regulated regime, rather than a low and self-regulated regime.
From: "Phyllis Wagg"
Subject: In response to Mr. Thornton
From: Ron Thornton
I would like to address Phyllis Wagg's comments in response to a couple of views I stated earlier in the Digest. I stated that "It would seem that just because Obama wants to jump aboard the carbon based socialist wealth transfer scheme, then we also should take part in wasting our time and resources by giving any credence to this fantasy." It appears Phyllis supports the concept of transferring wealth to those less fortunate, a worthy subject of debate. However, the aim of my comments were to attack the mechanism of distributing the wealth through a method that is deceitful, bogus, and is promoted by those who use outright lies, hypocrisy, and manipulation to present their case, while censuring those who might disagree or who simply seek to uncover the scientific truth of the matter. To provide for our fellow man is a good thing, but how we sometimes go about it has proven to be less than honorable or acceptable.
Your words speak for themselves. That is especially true when you characterize those who disagree with you in the terms above. In a sense I can understand you extreme emotionalism on this issue. It took a great deal of resources and time to put in place the mechanism to create a right wing transfer wealth by which wealth was transferred up the economic scale and concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals.
My comments have nothing to do with what you call "transferring wealth to those less fortunate." That is an entirely different concept than wealth transfer through competitive market mechanisms. Competitive market mechanisms are quite different from what came to be called "free markets" which are markets where the freedom of the biggest players to promote their self-interest is protected by government. Much of the regulation we have in place today and which is being proposed is geared to wealth concentration.
My comments relate to the mechanisms of economic change and renewal that are being hindered by a certain mindset. Environmentalism threatens modern conservatives because they profited from the old system of environmental exploitation with no thought of the consequences, just as they never thought of the consequences of creating and marketing a financial system that was exploitive and unsustainable.
Progressive Conservatives understand that economies need to adapt. Whether the alterations in our environment are manmade or natural our economy has to adapt to all forms of change. In a capitalist society wealth transfer both ways is essential to economic change and adaptation. A system that prevents the emergence of new thinking and simply accepts the self-serving elitism of the current class of economic players, or makes talented individuals their slaves, is doomed to stagnation and decline.
When government advisory groups are made up entirely of current or past CEOs the opportunity for new ideas is limited. Why was there not a peep when our governments created one-sided advisory groups such as the North American Competitiveness Council or the current Canadian economic advisory group? If there was interest in having another side of the issues presented you should have become just as angry over this as you are over the environmental issue. You may have but I did not see any outrage. The individuals appointed to these advisory groups may not be paid directly but they serve to promote their perceived self-interest.
There are huge economic opportunities possible with our adaptation to climatic variables. While globalization has destroyed most of the old economy this provides an opportunity to develop the new. Resistance from those who currently control capital is not unexpected because they profited from the old system.
Certainly the economic recession has undermined the environmental movement at the same time as capital from the old order flows into pressure groups pushing their anti-environment agenda. That does not prove that the arctic ice is not rapidly disappearing or that species are surviving in areas in which they were never before able to survive. It does not prove that we do not need to consider the development of new sources of energy and new ways of doing things that help conserve. We cannot afford to deny the evidence.
You be selective as to which set of scientific data you accept but that does not make the set you reject less valid.
From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: [wonder if Harper saw this before we bought into Chrysler???
May 1 2009: Overkill
From: "Suan H.Booiman" <email@example.com>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Treasury Board Pres. Toews Victor Man" <Toews.V@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: ""Stockwell DayOkanagan" <Day.S@parl.gc.ca>, "Cummins John Delta" <Cummins.J@parl.gc.ca>, "Cannan Ron" <Cannan.R@parl.gc.ca>, "Abbott Jim Kooteney" <Abbott.J@parl.gc.ca>, "Fast Ed Abborsford" <Fast.E@parl.gc.ca>, "Harris Richard Cariboo-Princ George" <Harris.R@parl.gc.ca>, "Hiebert Russ" <Hiebert.R@parl.gc.ca>, "Kamp Randy Pitmeados-Maple Ridge-Mission" <Kamp.R@parl.gc.ca>, "Grewal Nina Fleetwood" <Grewal.N@parl.gc.ca>, "Hill Jay Prince George" <Hill.J@parl.gc.ca>, "Lunn Gary Saanich" <Lunn.G@parl.gc.ca>, "Lunney James Nanaimo" <Lunney.J@parl.gc.ca>, "Moore James Port Moody" <Moore.J@parl.gc.ca>, "Strahl Chuck Chilliwack" <Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca>, "Mayes Colin Shuswap" <Mayes.C@parl.gc.ca>, "Stockwell Day" <email@example.com>, "Strahl Chuck B.C. CPC MP." <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Mcleod Cathy Kamloops" <McLeod.C@parl.gc.ca>, "Sexton Andrew Borth Vancouver" <Saxton.A@parl.gc.ca>, "Wong Alice Richmond" <Wong.A@parl.gc.ca>, "Cadman Donna Surrey" <email@example.com>, "Duncon John Vanc.Isl.North" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Weston John West Vancouver" <Weston.J@parl.gc.ca>, "Warawa Nark Langley" <Warawa.M@parl.gc.ca>, "Hievert Russ" <email@example.com>
Subject: The battle within
Suan H.Booiman C.C.D.H.
British Columbia White Rock V4B 4B1 Western Canada
May 2, 2009
The Hon.Mr.Victor Toews, CPC MP.
Chair of the Treasury Board
In a miserable time there are still some people that have hope for the Conservative
Party of Canada, putting this desire on your shoulders, personally I question them.
Today the Conservative Party of Canada has not proven that it is a party for all
Canadians as it, like all political parties in this country are corrupted with all that is
1, the formation of the Standing Committee on Official bilingualism
all French speaking and most of French heritage.
2. The Official of Office of Bilingualism, operating in a tone that it is dividing
the country for the interest of a French minority.
3. The arrogance of the leader of the Party the Rt.Hon. Stephen Harper to show
publicly that Quebec is more important than the Rest of the Country, so
demonstrated in the excessive providing of tax dollars (Canada July 1st
celebrations 85% of the budget goes again to Quebec)
4. the declaration of Quebec being a Nation within the Canadian Nation,
suggestion that it is more than the Rest of the Country, followed by the
political insulting assurance that Quebec is a State, like Trudeau acting
dictatorial without public consultation.
Since the CPC Members of Parliament died they day after their election because of
heavy hand from the Prime Minister "I tell you when to speak", the feeling is that
YOU can bring Canada back what it intended to be in 1867, so demonstrated till 1969.
Freedom of Speech being questioned there is not law that forbids to dream.
A British Columbian,
From: Roderick Mackin
Subject: Re: Disputation concerning new Nomination Rules
What would Preston do?
I believe he once said that it you run the circus you get clowns.
My personal bias is towards an incumbent. No matter what.
The effort invested in name recognition alone makes switching horses impractical.
Nobody should unseat a proven winner. Least of all some pompous blowhard with a mid-life crisis.
If we let this happen all sorts of wing-nut party loonies, (I can think of a few in Centre whose views are so odious as to offend Mussolini) would be administering ideological purity saliva tests to their
Give them break. Imagine being led by Mr. Personality and having to kowtow to those know-nothing, clumsy fools in the PMO. You know, the deaf, blind and stupid ones.
Party members often realize that incumbents are a-holes long before the voters catch on.
Their job is retail politics. Not second guessing.
Pound signs. Ring doorbells. Give til it hurts. Be nice to your neighbours.
And shut the f*** up.
If this doesn't work for them maybe they should be spending more time at Kiwanis or Rotary.
From: "Bill Till"
Subject: New CPC candidate nomination rules
Dear Mr. Hueglin:
I was forwarded a copy of your email exchange with the National Council of the CPC and I heartily endorse your position and dismay at the tactics adopted by the council and its president. I thought you might be interested in an exchange I had with Mr. Plett a few weeks ago.
March 21 2009
I went to the CPC website to find the name of the President of the National Council of the CPC and found your name and those of
the National Council.
I protest most vehemently the decision of the Council to change from the former candidate nomination policy. I gather from the
attached editorial in the Edmonton Journal that it has been arbitrarily decided that in order for a nomination meeting to be
called in a constituency, ballots are sent out to all current party members and at least two thirds of the returned ballots must
be in favour of calling a meeting. This is very undemocratic and greatly favours incumbents. And now, I understand that a
decision might be made to automatically declare any incumbent as the party candidate for the next election.
Admittedly, the great majority of the present incumbents are acceptable and supported by their constituents but that is no reason
why all incumbents should get a free ride. A demoractic traditional nomination meeting reaffirms the incumbent and spurs interest
in the party and the candidate, often greatly increasing party membership. It also gives the party members a chance to replace an
incumbent or party candidate with whom they have become disenchanted. If the incumbent can muster the necessary support, good for
him, but if he loses, he will be replaced by a person who is more favoured and more in touch with the constituents.
We have such a situation in our constituency, Vegreville-Wainwright. Many of the party members in this riding have lost
confidence in our current member who we feel has lost touch with the grassroots membership. Local citizens who appeal to him or
his office for help with government bureaucracy are ignored or put off and he seems to have absolutely no influence with the party
or the CPC caucus. His main interest seems to be in re-election so he can continue to draw his comfortable salary. No doubt
there are other similar situations across the country.
At a recent constituency AGM, his hand picked executive and board of directors was largely replaced by non-supporters. It was
felt that this was a good first step toward challenging his nomination. Now it seems the scales are being unfairly tipped with
the new requirements so as to favour incumbents.
In the prairies, nomination to CPC candidacy means almost certain election to Parliament so this is where the selection process
must work to produce the best person for the MP's job. In our particular riding, the political legacy left behind by the Rt. Hon.
Don Mazankowski means an automatic large majority for the CPC candidate and it also means that very weak opposition candidates are
We ask that you and your National Council reconsider your policy change and restore true democracy in the Conservative Party of
Canada. There is already a Liberal party that uses these tactics and we don't want to see our party go this way. Considering the
minority position of the CPC government and the present status of the political polls, our party cannot afford to alienate anyone.
The party must appear to be open, responsive and democratic.
Long time CPC/Alliance/Reform supporter.
Mr. Plett's reply:
March 22 2009
I would like to thank you for your letter and your concerns. I know that I will not be able to completely satisfy you with my response, however I will try to address your main concern and that being the democracy (or in your opinion) lack of in our decision.
First of all please be assured that we did not take lightly our decision. It was made through consultation with the grass roots membership ie: Presidents, members etc. Our Council has been given the mandate by the membership through the CPC constitution to deal with the nomination process. This is done when the constitution is reviewed at every convention, the last one just a few months ago in Winnipeg.
Councilors are indeed representative of the entire country 2 of them being from Alberta.
Decisions need to be made for the best of the entire country and indeed our decision is being well received in almost all areas of the country.
This not a permanent decision but for the 41st election only.
There is no consideration being given to automatically declaring the Incumbent the candidate without the process that we have implemented.
At Council meeting the only issue that received considerable debate was the percentage that was needed to declare the incumbent the candidate with some councilors thinking it was to low and some thinking it was to high. You will find in situations similar to this our constitution always has two thirds as the percentage so we believe we are being consistent with the constitution,
So I summary, as I said you may not be happy with the percentages but I assure you it is a one time process and we have a nominations committee that is working on future processes.
In as far as us changing this, the ballots have been printed and will be sent this week so I only hope that you will take part in the decision both now and then support you CPC candidate in the election.
Thank you again for you concerns and for your past support.
President Conservative Party of Canada
I copied the above to all members of the National Council and to the PM's office and received no other replies. I had previously sent a letter of concern to the PM's office and I did get a reply to that one. See below:
March 20 2009
To The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister:
I have read with considerable dismay an item in the National Post that infers that the normal Conservative process of candidate
nomination by local party associations with defense of their nominations at regular intervals may be scrapped in favour of a
process giving incumbents exemption from challenge before the next election. The National Post article also states that the
National Council has decided that a two thirs majority of existing memebrs is needed to hold a nomination meeting in all ridings.
Either one of these decisions interferes with the democratic candidate selection process that was a basic priciple of the CPC and
our constituency members strongly oppose such actions.
Please be advised that our local candidate and MP, Leon Benoit, has lost the confidence of a large number of his constituents and
his entire hand picked constituency executive and directorship has been replaced at a recent constituency meeting. Further
attestation to this loss of confidence is evidenced by the fact that he was challenged by other potential candidates in his last
two nomination meetings both of whom were very credible persons and long time workers for the Conservative party. The number of
dissatisfied CPC members in this constituency has grown markedly in the last few months as we feel that Mr. Benoit is losing touch
with his constituents.
Those who oppose his candidacy are convinced that he and his supporters have worked against the democratic process by not
publicizing meetings and by manipulating the time requirements. We urge you to allow the democratic and open candidate selection
process strongly supported by grass-roots Conservatives to continue.
Admittedly there are a great majority of incumbents who are very hard working and who enjoy the confidence of their constituents
but that is no reason to give a free ride to all without challenge. If they can meet a challenge and emerge victorious, that is
democracy in action but those who oppose them must be given their opportunity.
Thank you for your attention to this important item in the democratic process.
William G. Till
CPC member for many years
And the reply from the PMO:
April 17 2009
Dear Mr. Till:
On behalf of the Prime Minister, thank you for your e-mail of March 20.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to Conservative Party National Headquarters, within whose responsibility this issue falls. I am confident that the Party will give proper consideration to your concerns.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Susan I. Ross
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
cc: National Headquarters, Conservative Party of Canada
The above reply is about what one would expect but I am quite sure that the concern would be noted and passed on to the PM. I sincerely hope that the PM and his advisors would realise that there is a serious problem and that it will have a long term detrimental effect on CPC membership numbers and enthusiasm.
We have a similar situation here in Vegreville-Wainwright where our group was able to replace the constituency board with our own supporters. We are very unsatisfied with our sitting member who has never been able to attain a position of any importance in the government after 5 elections. That speaks for itself and convinces us more than ever that he seeks re-election solely for the rather generous stipend that he receives. Unfortunately, we are almost powerless to effect any change in this next election due to the National Council's arbitrary decisions but we hope that we will have much more effect in the future. Contrary to your situation in Calgary West, we do not have a strong alternate candidate in the wings but we have some prospects that appear to have potential.
I thought you might be encouraged to hear that you are not fighting alone against this arbitrary and undemocratic process currently in place.
W. G. Till
From: Rubie Britton
Subject: No Water To Waste
- If you haven't heard of this campaign
From: "Andrew Rutherford"
Yes Becky it is our complacency. Ever since Mr. Trudeau was allowed to write a constitution favoring Quebec and imposing it the way he did Not only did he do that but he didn't allow for any correcting of the constitution and it must stay that way forever to suit Quebec's greed. What I am saying is probably treasonous as freedom of speech is marginal . It would take the support of all the people outside Quebec to change the constitution and we can't even elect a majority government.
From: Larry Kazdan
To: Metro <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Letter to Editor re: Home stretch on the provincial hustings, Paul Sullivan, May 01
- Re: Home stretch on the provincial hustings, Paul Sullivan, May 01
From: "Mahmood Elahi"
To: "Letters to the Editor" <email@example.com>
Subject: NDP and Bloc can wait at their peril
The Toronto Star
NDP and Bloc can wait at their preil
Re "Elections? It doesn't add up," by Angelo Persichilli (May 3) and "Why power is so elusive for Liberals," by James Travers (May 2).
It is said that coming events cast their shadows before them and it is clear that the Liberals will win the next election. By needlessly alienating francophone voters, after first courting them, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has lost his foothold in Quebec and cannot hope to win a single Quebec seat. In Ontario, the Conservative support remains confined to the rural and suburban areas and this will not be enough to win the election. As such, the Conservatives will face an inevitable defeat in the next election.
However, the question remains: Can the Liberals win a majority? The answer may be that they cannot if the election is held now. With the Liberals gaining in both Quebec and Ontario, the NDP and the Bloc can wait only at their peril. If they try to prop up the Conservatives, they will further alienate their bases who are likely to migrate to the Liberals, opening the door for a Liberal majority. They can only stem a Liberal landslide if they force an election now. If the election is held now, the Liberals are likely to form a minority government. Any delay will cost both the NDP and the Bloc dearly.
James Travers fails to realize that with Liberals winning most elections in the past, power has never been elusive for Liberals. Angelo Persichilli fails to realize that the Liberals are poised to win in the next election and the NDP and the Bloc can stop a Liberal majority if they trigger an election without delay. By trying to win a majority by hook or by crook, Mr. Harper has lost his chance to govern for long.
From: "Brian D. Marlatt"
Subject: Time for PM Harper to pack it in - The Hill Times - Newspaper Online.
From: The Natroses
Oh Joe, Just had to sent this to you. When I read it, I thought it was a joke. It appears to be real, and I am not too far off the mark when it comes to garage sales. Whatever happen to buyer beware?
Re: Disputation concerning new Nomination Rules
Well Joe, I raised my eyebrows enough times, reading the new rules. It looks that they have ham-strung and hog-tied their own grassroots, where no one has a say, even on their candidates. Last time, I check a MP represents the people of his riding. In this case, the MP or the candidates are in lock-step with the Conservative council orders and agendas. By requiring two-thirds or 66 percent of members to run a nomination meeting, in math odds is highly doubtful, for any riding where the grassroots are advocating change of their MP. In the event that the grassroots are successful, council has the final say in who can run or not run.
My question is, why we have not seen articles in the main-stream media talking about this? Where democracy in picking a Conservative MP to run in a riding, does not exist? Why the rules, look more like a page taken from a Corporation play book - where often you need a lawyer to be the referee?
From: Mary-Sue Haliburton
Subject: open letter to Terence Young, MP (C-6)
Hi again Joe.
Home invasions by teams of gun-toting cops and other agents who intimidate people and confiscate property are being perpetrated by Health Canada here, and by the FDA/unidentified gangs apparently operating under these "authorities" south of the border. This looks like a symptom of the creep toward fascism becoming a headlong plunge.
Here are links to Canadian case (Eldon Dahl):
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCHlTxUqNM&feature=channel >
and US example (organic food coop) in which the family's food supply was outright stolen:
< http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/02/Unconscionable-Police-Raid-on-Familys-Home-and-Organic-Food-CoOp.aspx >
See below my recent email to Terence Young, a Conservative MP whose daughter died from taking the drug Prepulsid. He is trying to bring in a major reform via Private Member's Bill -- but this would be overridden by the Trojan-Horse clause in Bill C-6 (C-51 reloaded).
From: Mary-Sue Haliburton
Date: April 28, 2009 17:20:47 EDT (CA)
Subject: private member's bill & Bill C-6 -- contradiction?
Dear Mr. Young:
Your family's loss due to the drug Prepulsid has engaged the sympathies of many Canadians, and I hope this translates into support for your proposed bill to replace the corrupt regulatory agency that rubber-stamps drugs for sale in Canada without any independent scientific testing or review. The change of mandate from protecting the public to serving corporate clients had been put in place a few years ago, or had developed gradually, becoming publicly known when the Liberal government of the day fired Dr. Shiv Chopra, and also because of Nancy Olivieri's attempt to expose bribery and the subsequent break-in and theft of her records. (Motive, means, opportunity...)
Has your bill been tabled yet, and given an identifying number?
I wish to address to you some questions regarding the context into which you are bringing this forward. Your party's leadership has again put before Parliament, in Bill C-6, a set of new laws that actually undermine the attempt you are making to remove corruption from the system. Though this bill is promoted as protecting families and children from dangerous products, it contains clauses that actually put Canadians more at risk from pharmaceutical industry abuses.
I wanted to bring to your attention some objections to this bill which I sent to my MP, Mr. John Baird. (see below) In that letter, I briefly summarize the frightening home-invasion of a peaceful naturopathic doctor Eldon Dahl by no fewer than nine people. If you are not familiar with this incident, please see the series of video clips in which the obviously-shaken doctor describes what was done to him and his family. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCHlTxUqNM&feature=channel >
Note that there are several parts to this report. (To access the other parts, please click on thumbnail links in the menu which is on the right side of above web-page below the brief background information intro.) All segments are important to convey the full import of this incident, and how the changes in legislation which have been underway for a few years affect legal and human rights in this country.
In my view, this is evidence that natural health products and their vendors are being criminalized, and that this will only get worse with the passage of this bill. However, under C-6, the pharmaceutical industry is not being clobbered with the same iron fist.
Wasn't it Conservatives who used to stand for reduced regulation and for property rights? How is it that today's Conservative Party is able to put forward this egregious legislation without batting an eyelash?
Section 2 (e) and (f) defines our government as including "a government of a foreign state or of a subdivision of a foreign state", and "an international organization of states".
Canadians don't elect foreign governments! Why should we be subjected to their laws?
If you are supporting C-6, are you aware that it contains clauses that would negate all the effort you have put into your private member's bill? If put in place, C-6 is an abdication of the responsibility to govern on behalf of and for the citizens of this land would forever remove and render useless any future attempt by Parliament to respond to the demands of citizens to bring our health laws into the 21st century.
What will benefit our health and reduce medical costs is to recognize the primacy of good nutrition as repeatedly confirmed by scientific research as well as by numerous studies and patient outcomes. At the same time, in the face of increasing contamination of the watershed by pharmaceutical products which don't break down naturally, humanity will have to demand a phase-out of all toxic medications and of synthetics that don't break down in the environment. These products also cause severe side effects (including deaths) even when properly used.
Yet a process to enshrine them in world-trade law is underway, and this bill leaves the back door of Canada open for its implementation here without any ability of the public to object.
Instead of logical health-promoting natural nutrients, we are to be subjected to the Codex Alimentarius. Mostly-secret and unpublicized negotiations continue in which our government participates. Recently the Canadian government made a presentation on how much of many serious toxins -- such as kidney-damaging melamine -- can be in food products.
< http://www.thenhf.com/press_releases/pr_30_mar_2009.html >
There is no indication that there would even be warning labels about restricting the quantity of such foods in one's diet. Yet the same trade negotiations include the plan to impose a Napoleonic-Code "positive list" of permitted vitamins and minerals. The list will effectively eliminate most of the natural and easily-absorbed forms of these nutrients, because the list includes only the industrial versions which have been patented by big drug companies, despite negative side effects associated with some of them.
Are you aware of this? Do you actually support it? Wouldn't the adoption and enshrinement of Codex render null and void any work done by an independent drug-assessment agency in Canada? Bill C-6 puts into place in law the means to make the recommendations of such an agency into a violation of trade laws! And that's before you can even present your bill.
A report on the In Rotterdam on March 30, 2009, there was a meeting of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF). The NHF (National Health Federation), the only citizen-based group allowed to address a Codex committee meeting, attempted to bring forward a question, and this was not even recorded in the official report. NHF provides a fly-on-the-wall view of Codex functioning:
< http://www.thenhf.com/press_releases/pr_30_mar_2009.html >
Canada can to enter into treaties. However, as long as sovereignty is upheld, the treaty signatory can abrogate a treaty in certain circumstances, such as the other nation not living up to its provisions, or if the public is overwhelmingly opposed and changes the party in power. But Canadians cannot question (or vote out) a foreign government or trade organization such as Codex if it gets put into power in this country merely through an announcement in the Gazette.
Will we all be criminalized and see gun-toting cops breaking in our doors if we don't want to comply with this sneakily-internalized legislation of foreign origin?
Thinking back to the election last fall, I cannot recall a promise made by Mr. Harper to remove all future ability to control our health rights as being in the election platform! Did you campaign on a promise to do that? Yet this is the exact wording of what this government has put on the table in Bill C-6, despite all the flag-waving and the usual rhetoric about less government and less regulation. That actually translates into more control by pharmaceutical multinationals.
As a conservative, were you campaigning for re-election using the soothing claim that the "Consumer Protection Act" was going to protect families and their children? Did you know that it might result in the opposite effect if Bills C-51 and C-52 were brought back with the same wording as in C-6?
Recently I wrote to your colleague Dr. James Lunney, to make these points. I reminded him of his speech to Parliament in support of the non-profit citizen group which was importing EmPowerPlus, a nutritional supplement that was improving the lives of bipolar patients. He deplored the irresponsible actions of Health Canada officials who stopped its importation by enforcing their regulations.
As far as I know, those HC officials have still not in any way been held accountable for the deaths that occurred because of their actions. Bipolar patients, who because the officially-approved drugs failed them, had turned to nutrition. Being deprived again of EmpowerPlus by Health Canada's inteference, and being forced back to the failed pharmaceuticals, these people lost their stability and some committed suicide.
In my view that was an example of -- at best -- criminal negligence on the part of the regulatory authorities. Whoever was Minister of Health at the time, it should be recognized, shares responsibility with those Health Canada bureaucrats for these deaths.
When their own actions to enforce the letter of the law have caused deaths, it's extremely hypocritical for Health Canada agents to invade homes, seize products and intimidate naturopathic doctors who are in every way "doing no harm" by recommending and selling safe nutritional supplements. There is no record of harm, and therefore no evidence of wrongdoing -- by any objective standard -- which could justify condemning Dr. Dahl. Yet Bill C-6 would even take from such individuals the right to defend themselves in court, allowing the Minister of Health to be both Judge and Beneficiary of seized goods.
Given that none of these implications was explained in the election platform, it is my contention that Canadians did not give the Conservative government a mandate to destroy basic legal rights as does Bill C-6, the reincarnated C-51/C-52. Also, Canadians did not give this government any mandate to impose on us laws written by a foreign state or even an organization of foreign states, although that is what Harper shows us that his victory has turned out to mean. Bill C-6 "gives away the store" politically by allowing Codex to be imposed on Canadians without any debate in Parliament.
This loss of democratic freedom and legal rights which will result from Bill C-6 being passed will not result in healthier or safer citizens.
If those results do not reflect your values as a Conservative, it makes me wonder who really wrote this legislation, and why. It is not beyond the realm of imagination to suppose that it was the pharmaceutical company influence through Health Canada which shaped this despicable piece of legislation. If passed, it would render your private member's bill useless.
I hope that you will oppose these changes to fundamental legal rights and the termination of Canadian sovereignty that are hidden in Bill C-6 under the guise of "protecting" consumers.
Thank you for your attention and appropriate action.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary-Sue Haliburton
Date: April 17, 2009 11:49:48 EDT (CA)
To: "John - M.P. Baird" < Baird.J@parl.gc.ca >
Subject: The Heavy Hand of Health Canada: Egregious Departure from Rule of Law
Dear Mr. Baird:
After hearing about how four RCMP officers treated Robert Dziekanski, it was disturbing to learn about four RCMP officers being deployed against a peaceful naturopathic doctor in a home raid that took place in January of this year.
Eldon Dahl had no criminal record. He was not selling any addictive or harmful products. Yet for some unknown reason it was thought that four armed officers would be needed to invade his home in order to protect five Health Canada investigators. That's a total of nine people! Is this a reasonable use of manpower? In a time when we are being told that Canada is at risk from violent terrorists, is it reasonable to send four armed officers against a peaceful taxpayer who is simply engaged in helping people to use common sense about their diet and to keep themselves well? A five-minute investigation by police prior to this raid would have enabled them to see that the excess firepower was not needed.
However illogical the reasons may have been for this raid, it was Mrs. Dahl who answered the door. This woman had to face a drawn gun and a home invasion without any information being given to her. And as she had grown up under communism, this was all too familiar as a memory of what had happened in her home country. Dr. Dahl had reassured her that Canada was a free society and that she would never again have to face gestapo-like police invading the home. This would never happen here, he'd told her.
So, under our current government, has Canada become a Communist state?
Or, just as bad, are we becoming a Nazi state?
If ordinary and law-abiding citizens are being treated as criminals for conducting their profession according to accredited schools of thought, it seems to matter little which extreme of the political spectrum is in power. Both communism and Naziism are tyrannical and abusive of human and legal rights. Didn't Canada fight World War II, at huge cost and with the sacrifice of many soldiers and merchant seamen, to prevent this kind of tyranny from taking root in our country?
It seems to me that the laws which allow this kind of abusive and intimidating raid against peaceful citizens in their homes dishonours the memory of our many war veterans, and makes their sacrifices meaningless.
What has happened to our free society in which the Canadian Charter of Rights, not to mention the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (to which Canada is a signatory), protected us from unreasonable search and seizure?
Dr. Dahl is asking why he was dealt with in his heavy-handed manner. His wife and daughter were terrorized, his private home and private records were seized, including contents of a home safe that were personal, not business-related. Why was he not treated as a corporation (his personal business is incorporated) and according to corporate law, he also asks?
Equally important, how is it that completely safe and non-toxic items were listed in the warrant (which they finally showed to him after saying he didn't have any right to know why they were there), as if some kind of crime is involved in advising people to nourish themselves properly?
The cops themselves were expecting to deal with a narcotics pusher; Dr. Dahl found out from talking with them that they didn't even know what was in the warrant. One of the charges listed against him was that he was selling folic acid with a higher dose than is available in Canadian drugstores, although everything listed there is being sold over the counter in the United States. As a criminal charge, selling folic acid as a therapeutic agent is ridiculous. Folic acid is not only safe, it's an essential nutrient. So many toxic chemicals to which we are exposed, as well as UV light, tend to deplete our bodies of this important biological compound. The typical dose available in drugstores may not provide enough to compensate for all these stresses on the system, although all we'd have to do would be to take two or three tablets instead of one to achieve better health protection.
It makes no sense at all to treat this man like a terror suspect for advising people to boost their levels of folic acid to help them resist health damage.
In the strongest possible terms, I wish to register my objections not just to this raid, nor just to the idea that vitamins and herbs are dangerous. I object to the whole privatization and change of direction in Health Canada, turning that agency into an arm of the pharmaceutical industry. It is no longer the citizens of Canada, but the multinational drug companies which are now their clients. This is simple fact; it's stated on the HC website.
By no stretch of the imagination does criminalization of herbs and of therapeutic levels of vitamins constitute protection of the consumer! Enthronement of toxic drugs as "health products" is not based on superior science, just on science that has a lot of financial clout. If the whole pharmaceutical paradigm can only be sold to the public by forcibly removing the alternatives, then there certainly is not any obvious superiority in either its scientific foundation or in its results.
Bill C-6 does not protect Canadian families from risky products, nor does it defend our basic human and legal freedom. The government which put forward this abhorrent piece of legislation is not upholding justice which your party was given a sacred trust to carry out. Instead of defending human rights and freedoms, your government is now poised to inflict on us Bill C-6, which will further constrict our rights and unleash more such reprehensible raids.
And while your government wastes money sending out large teams of cops needlessly against peaceful doctors and alternative health professionals whose only desire is to heal people, narcotics dealers are still rampaging through the streets, committing murders and roping in addicts who also commit crimes in an attempt to support their habits. I demand that the police muscle be directed against those real and violent criminals, and no longer misdirected against innocent doctors and naturopaths, terrorizing them and their families in their homes.
I completely object to the so-called Consumer Protection Act, which would allow the government simply to announce regulations which could be used to make safe, non-toxic products into banned drugs, and which gives huge powers to HC inspectors to regulate a low-risk set of consumer products. This bill would allow property seizure without even getting a warrant -- just on suspicion.
Abolishing the law of trespass will take away the privacy protection that Canadians have enjoyed and that the courts have upheld for our whole history. The level of threat from consumer products is generally low to non-existent -- after all, haven't they all had to be approved by the government in the first place? The low level of risk is especially true in the case of nutritional supplements. It's hard to see how throwing away our legal rights can be justified based on such low risk. Yet Bill C-6 is a slippery slope that will make us no longer a free and democratic country, but a police state.
And this Bill C-6 also would allow such seized private property to be held indefinitely while the owner is billed for storage! That is outrageous in itself, an egregious departure from protecting citizens against abuses of power. This so-called Consumer Protection Act would allow Health Canada to bypass the courts which protect human rights such as privacy and property. Under administrative charges, the raided individual would be presumed guilty, and would not even be able to have his day in court.
Most disturbing of all is that, upon declaring the individual guilty (against which he has no opportunity to prove in court that he was innocent), it is the Minister as Judge who gets to keep the confiscated property! This cannot be considered anything but blatant conflict of interest.
The whole of Bill C-6 is gratuitous anyway. We already have a Hazardous Products Act, and provisions in law to enable dangerous products to be removed from the market, while respecting due process, and legal rights of citizens. This government can hardly complain about abuses of human rights in Afghanistan while taking away legal rights at home! It's extremely hypocritical.
Such a blanket shift in our system away from respecting the courts and legal rights can only make these raids more common and subject more innocent and law-abiding citizens to criminalization and to the psychological trauma of such a home invasion.
Please protect the legal rights of Canadians engaged in legitimate health and other forms of business by withdrawing your support for this bill.
Thank you for your attention and for action on behalf of the rule of law and of human and legal rights.