Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The next scandal? | Main | CBC Promo Girl doing Liberal attack ad voice-overs? No, she isn't »

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Liberal Red Book leaked!

Waiting for the Liberal Red Book? Wait no longer! Here's an, ahem, "advance copy".

Please credit the Western Standard and our blog, The Shotgun!

LATE NIGHT READING UPDATE: Use the word search function to see what's important in the Red Book and what's not, measured by how many times a word appears in the 85-page document. For example:

"notwithstanding clause": zero

"western alienation": zero

"democratic deficit": zero

It's fun -- do it yourself!

Posted by Ezra Levant on January 10, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8345ac1f469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberal Red Book leaked!:

» Little Red Riding Book from small dead animals
The Liberal Red Book has been leaked to the Big Bad Western Wolves.... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-01-11 6:53:08 AM

» New Liberal Red Book Leaked from BBS
Ezra Levant scoops Canada. [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-01-11 7:08:41 AM

» Little Red Riding Book from small dead animals
The Liberal Red Book has been leaked to the Big Bad Western Wolves. Update: Reader George writes in the comments; "this 'Red Book' is the same as the "Plan for Growth and Prosperity' that we paid Earnscliffe and Herle to... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-01-11 7:38:25 AM

» Lunge and Parry from A North American Patriot
An insidious bug that I can't seem to shake, is certain to keep me fairly low-profile today. But I did come across one thing that I wanted to comment on. With regard to the Liberal attack ad, that never made [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-01-11 8:22:18 AM

» Liberal Red Book from wolfvillewatch
The LIberals have not yet released their full platform. Too busy making up attack ads? Or perhaps they don't want ... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-01-11 11:00:09 AM

» Liberal Red Book leaked! from Complacent Nation
Click for full article from the Weekly Standard Waiting for the Liberal Red Book? Wait no longer! Here's an, ahem, "advance copy". Please credit the Western Standard and our blog, The Shotgun! LATE NIGHT READING UPDATE: Use the word search functi [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-01-11 5:41:37 PM

» The Great Right North from View From a Height
As both of Canada's voters prepare to go to the polls, and with a little under two weeks to go in the campaign, an increasing number of polls show the Tories pulling ahead of the incumbent Liberals, with their momentum... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-01-11 9:24:59 PM

» The Great Right North from View From a Height
As both of Canada's voters prepare to go to the polls, and with a little under two weeks to go in the campaign, an increasing number of polls show the Tories pulling ahead of the incumbent Liberals, with their momentum... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-01-11 9:36:24 PM

Comments

The Liberals are as tough on crime as they are tough on the Kadr family, which is to say, they are not. If the Liberals were tough on crime, half of the Cabinet would be in jail and Paul Martin would flee the country.

Posted by: wharold | 2006-01-11 10:21:16 AM


Proudly not from the west ...

You sound angry, frightened, frustrated and well.. not very smart.

I like those things about you.

I know that it's tough for lefties to not curse and swear, but your language is that of a street scummer. Grow up .. name calling is .. very Liberal and not really welcomed by the gentle people of the west.

You see Proud .. an armed society is a polite society.

Perhaps we can view you in the next televised Toronto "Pride" parade. Hold up a big yellow sign so we will know it's you.

Did I just indulge in name calling or was just crude metapor?

Posted by: Duke | 2006-01-11 10:26:10 AM


Arrgh. I just took a look at the "date created" for that pdf. June 2, 2004.

Posted by: Ed Minchau | 2006-01-11 10:30:10 AM


Centrist
You miss the point; handguns HAVE been banned for years. Did it save the girl in Toronto? How about MY right to own a firearm? I know to you people that means nothing. So we spend billions to make criminals out of ordinary people? If passing bad law and spending billions makes you FEEL better, or safer; good for you. I and many others are tired of the government interference and are not so naive.

Posted by: Richard | 2006-01-11 10:32:18 AM


Well, I'm glad my two Toronto Star articles were at least able to provoke some thought. Not intelligent thought, mind you, but it's a start. I actually lived in Vancouver for 4 years and I was screaming to get out of there. It was just too easy to win arguments. I was so sick of hearing those idiots spew patent falsehoods like "the west is under-represented in Parliament compared to Ontario". As Rick James would say: "wrong... WRONG". The fact is (props to my man Dithers) that Ontario is grossly UNDERREPRESENTED IN PARLIAMENT, according to its share of the Canadian population. There are many ridings in the T.O. area that have well over 100,000 people, whereas many rural ridings elsewhere in Canada have a tiny fraction of those people.

Also, what's this total horseshit about "leaky" government computers? If you actually read the article, it says that the dumbass gun collector (probably an Albertan at heart) actually installed his giant-ass safe in the middle of the day when people were around... you don't have to have an "in" with the gun registry to know this guy's storing guns. Stop using paranoid ramblings about government registries to justify your gun-totin' high-fallutin', will-give-george-bush-fellatio-for-a-pat-on-the-back, red neck, racist, intolerant, country bumpnkin ways!!!!

Posted by: Proudly Not From The West | 2006-01-11 10:39:32 AM


Glad I started some interest on guns.. so..

LIBERAL POLITICIANS. The term no longer exists in the new Canadian vocabulary. It has been replaced with a new term: Liberal Ultracrepidarians; giving opinions on matters beyond one's knowledge, one who ventures beyond his scope, an ignorant or presumptuous critic.

There have been horrible shootings in Toronto. Several have taken place over a short period of time, and several articles have been published stating that people have lost faith in our policing system. What an asinine presumptuous thought. People have lost faith in the Canadian political and justice system. A political and justice system that has been developing laws that have little bearing or application, but yet hinder innocent people from going about their regular lives. Besides, the laws (due to our democratic deficit) that should exist, do NOT. One example law that should be scrapped is the 'gun registry’. How many of these shootings in Ontario have made headlines that read: Mad hunter goes nutz. Politicians have the nerve to support the registry with a statement about how police can use this as a tool of knowledge when approaching a residence under suspicious or known criminal activity. Was that not a prior given when police approach a home, building, car or person? The police are doing the best they can with the manpower and equipment they have. The problem we have is a population that repetitively votes in Liberal Ultracrepidarians.

Posted by: Mark Nyman | 2006-01-11 10:43:28 AM


Richard, you asked:

> How about MY right to own a firearm?

I don't believe that's in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Perhaps in the 2nd amendment of another fine country's constitution.

> So we spend billions to make criminals out
> of ordinary people?

The ordinary people I know don't want to have guns. I live in a city.

Posted by: centerist | 2006-01-11 10:45:26 AM


Let the record show that I was a moderate Ontarian nationalist, not wanting to vote Liberal, starting to pay attention, thinking that Harper was at least occasionally *making sense*, asking for a short explanation of Conservative aims beyond short-term policy, because this seemed a good place to meet some savvy righties...

...reading praise of Mulroney's far-sighted economic policy, feeling sympathetic...

...and between critiques on Liberal web server security policy, and discussion of handgun control (I've never even seen one, I live in a city like centerist and 77% of the rest of Canadians -- you can't make me care that you collect devices designed to help people kill people), I received no response and found this forum completely intellectually devoid, full of self-referential reinforcement of talking points instead of values. (Oh, one veiled bash at gays, but we all know the prevailing wisdom on raging homophobes.)

I said some inflammatory things, because Conservatives (and, at this point, Albertans) are going to have to justify some things to me, and I wanted to see some logical supporters distance themselves from the haters.

I don't know if the Conservative party shares my values, but its supporters here apparently don't. Maybe, much like homosexuality, you have to be born Conservative.

I asked for a 30 second statement of vision from a grassroots Conservative. I got no response. What sort of response do you imagine I might get on a thread full of NDP supporters? (I don't claim Liberals would be any better.) I guess they have lots of time to do such things in between being rude, smuggling guns, smoking marijuana and making trips to the unemployment office.

I thought Harper was representing a party, but to hear you talk, it's an ideology, and I stay clear of ideologies, crack and other things that rot my brain.

Good Lord, run, it's an intelligent moderate.

What a disgusting waste of time. Thank you all for clearing that up. Bye.

Posted by: Who's Tommy | 2006-01-11 10:59:03 AM


"I actually lived in Vancouver for 4 years and I was screaming to get out of there."

So somehow that makes you an expert on Alberta? It reminds me of Vice-President Dan Quayle saying how he knew a lot about Southern California because he lived in Phoenix, Arizona.

Ontario has 1/3rd of the seats with about the same proportion of the population. That's about fair but it gives the Liebral Party too much to work with. All they have to do is appease on Ontario and win a few extra seats and they have a majority. An elected and equal senate would balance power in favor of non-Ontario, which is precisely why Ontario would oppose it. No wonder nothing gets done.

"If you actually read the article, it says that the dumbass gun collector (probably an Albertan at heart) actually installed his giant-ass safe in the middle of the day when people were around... "

The Alberta bit is pure prejudice. Why can't Ontarians, even Toronto people, be gun collectors. Such stereotypes undermine your credibility. Indeed, he did have to move that safe in to his gov't subsidized apartment - they had to take the 500lb door off just to move it. If he could afford $40k in guns and an expensive safe to put it in, why was he living in a subsidized apartment? This doesn't make that much of a difference but such things would seem unusual anywhere else outside Ontario.

"Stop using paranoid ramblings about government registries to justify your gun-totin' high-fallutin', will-give-george-bush-fellatio-for-a-pat-on-the-back, red neck, racist, intolerant, country bumpnkin ways!!!!"

Prejudice, pure and simple. "racist, intolerant" applies quite nicely to white Ontario's view of non-whites. They care little for the 77 people murdered in their unfair city last year, but when one pretty white teenager gets wacked, it's a great tragedy. Toronto is the most racially divided city in Canada. They are more interested in maintaining the image of a tolerant safe city than restoring it from the current reality.

Thank God (yes, God - I know that scares Ontarians who think they are God) that I am an Albertan and immune to their snobbery.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-01-11 11:01:21 AM


Proud,(what an oxymoron)

You say that the victim of the gun thefts installed a safe in broad daylight where thieves may have got wind of it?

So what we have is a Toronto gun thief problem, not a gun storage problem

What's with you Easterners and your gun stealing and shooting of each other?

You should move out west .. there is a lot less of that stuff going on out here.

Sounds like you are living in a cesspool. I hear the air is pretty bad too .. Traffic too, Water too.

I think you have been eating the yellow snow.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-01-11 11:03:28 AM


Scott wrote:

> Thank God (yes, God - I know that scares Ontarians
> who think they are God) that I am an Albertan and
> immune to their snobbery.

Its nice that you believe in a God but I don't. So when you invoke the name of your heavenly father that's all fine and well but it should be done in a way to avoid assuming all others do/must/should believe in the same big guy.

Posted by: centerist | 2006-01-11 11:13:45 AM


Want a vision of what's wrong with Canada Tommy? Look in the mirror moonbat and keep right on supporting the real party of intolerance; and certainly of corruption. Buy a history book dude... hatred and intolerance has always sprang from the left. As usual your blurred view of what Canada should look like and the shape it is in now under the present regime is amazing. If you can't figure out whats wrong with Canada on your own why are you looking for answers here? You poor lost soul. Harper and the west have been talking for years, but as usual you are so busy talking and living in your ivory tower your not listening. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Posted by: Richard | 2006-01-11 11:23:15 AM


I'd like to put forward the motion that we ignore Proudly Not From The West as it is counter productive to have to scroll through third rate pap.Perhaps if ignored ,they'll crawl back into their sorry hole.

Posted by: simon | 2006-01-11 11:29:52 AM


So, the new Red Book is up on the Liberal web site, which announces it with this preamble:

Prime Minister Paul Martin today released the Liberal Party’s platform, “Securing Canada’s Success,” which commits to cutting tuition for students, making child care funding permanent, adding 1,000 new family doctors and amending the Constitution to remove the federal government’s ability to overrule the Supreme Court.

But you still can't find the promise to amend the Constitution in the Red Book, and I'm not sure the Prime Minister even promised that much in the debate.

Posted by: Peter | 2006-01-11 11:31:08 AM


Boy, I'm filing this blog away. It will come in handy to show my friends what a tolerant and intelligent bunch of people that seem to live in Ontario.

Nice to see that liberals are the same on conservative blogs. Issue void, rude and unable to formuate any arguments, much less ones that make any sense.

However, I have to admit that it is fun to see these lefties 'spazzing'. Quite entertaining.

Ed the Hun

Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-11 11:37:56 AM


"I actually lived in Vancouver for 4 years and I was screaming to get out of there."

Vancouver is not representative of the west (the old city council was completely insane, denying walmart to punish w. bush etc..). the marijuana party is based here afterall

i personally cannot wait to leave vancouver, heck i would rather live in montreal again!

Posted by: stuckInVancouver | 2006-01-11 11:38:19 AM


OH MY GOD!

Martin just said that if the Supreme Court ruled that private healthcare is a right, then as the Prime Minister without the notwithstanding clause, then THAT WOULD STAND.

The Supreme Court would be supreme.

He has given the supremes absolute authority. Divine right?

What in the hell? Martin is no longer the defender of Public Healthcare.

Ed the Hun

Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-11 11:47:10 AM


I have just noticed that the student support plans in the Red Book have an anomoly.(I am not an accountant and could be way off the mark on this)

Students can get $3000.00 help for first and last year of University. (The 50/50 grant plan) Except "poor" students who can get up to $3000.00 worth of help per year with their college expenses (The Canada Access grant). This means the help for poor students now is meaningless because all students can now get $3000.00. If the liberals really wanted to help students struggling with high costs of post secondary education they would have allowed "poor" students access to the 50/50 program.

Posted by: Servant | 2006-01-11 11:47:22 AM


He (Martin) is being interviewed right now on TV!

Ed the Hun

Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-11 11:48:58 AM


He is now saying that he knows that the Supreme Court will never attempt to overturn Religious rights, even if it conflicts with gay rights.

He is trumpetting religion over gay rights!

I'm not making this up!

Ed the Hun

Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-11 11:51:18 AM


He is now talking about the Conservative hidden agenda (unable to comprehend that his own, previously secret and not part of the party platform) gives him a hidden agenda.

This is priceless. A conservative couldn't have written this script this good. I feel like I'm watching Homer Simpson trying to get the nuclear power plant working properly where he is the safety manager. This interview is hilarious.

Ed the Hun

Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-11 11:56:00 AM


Oh, oh.

Martin is saying that property rights are a US issue. How unCanadian to want my property rights protected.

Ed the Hun

Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-11 11:58:07 AM


Sorry, I didn't mean to make comments on this blog on an ongoing interview, but I couldn't resist.

At least the MSM asked some very good questions on why/how Martin has to turn himself into a human pretzel to explain his defence for rights by promising to use the notwithstanding clause (i.e. religion) in the past and how now he thinks that he can remove the notwithstanding clause to better protect those rights now.

Yup good to see Martin flopping about like a fish gasping for breath.

Ed the Hun

Posted by: EdtheHun | 2006-01-11 12:07:07 PM


Well! Any more carping about Harper and I'll stop wasting my time here. (or is that your plan, you Liberal moles?)

I'm pleased to see Harper has been cracking a smile during these debates. I had thought Smiling Jack had monopolized the concept of projecting a pleasant personable image.

I am more certain than ever that Harper is the only politician who is both worthy to lead the country, and capable of repairing the damage that's been done us all by the Liberal government.

Why he's willing to put up with the attending BS (such as I've seen in a few posts here) may forever remain a mystery to me.

And as for guns-hand or otherwise-I have come about to see them as an essential civil right. If anybody actually wanted guns removed from our society, why would you still arm the police with them, and yet disarm the citizenry?

The answer to that can only be the serf mentality of our overlords. (i.e. Serfs 'R' Us)

And with a Supreme Court of Canada (to say nothing of the provincial superior courts) overrun with homosexuals divining a "Charter Right" to have the state condone buggery (still actually a crime) and other depraved acts of a pseudo sexual nature. And now! Naturally enough! Corollary to the promiscuous homosexual mindset, now it's tolerable to the SCC to have a "social club" to operate openly as a business encouraging "swingers"!

Canada! The world's second Pornocracy!

And Paul Martin's going to revoke the Charter s.33 "notwithstanding" clause? So! The PM of perversion is going to make the SCC the ultimate lawmaker of Canada, and not the democratically elected Parliament?

The "Property Rights" that Harper has correctly observed are improperly lacking in the Charter (they exist in the Canadian Bill of Rights since 1960), according to Liberal PM Paul Martin, are a U.S. style Right Wing Agenda!

I am now absolutely convinced that the people of Canada NEED to have the right to bear arms enshrined into the constitution of Canada, to protect ourselves from our own government!

Posted by: David Millar | 2006-01-11 12:09:39 PM


Just a quick note on the handgun issue. I held a contest one year challenging people I knew to design a gun.
In three days I had 16 workable designs from ordinary law abiding intellegent people who designed guns that could be manufactured with simple hand tools and common materials. Some even had ways to make or eliminate the need for regular ammo. Martin can beat up on law abiding gun owners all he wants, he can close the border to all traffic and he still will not stop crooks from getting guns. He's scamming voters with another scary story that is of his own manufacture. He wants to take handguns away from the law abiding citizens because he knows that they are the only ones that will give up their guns. The crooks will be laughing and the gullible voters will think he actually did something because of all the guns he "took off the streets".
Another look good - do nothing (except hurt innocent people - Liberal con.
The Liberals have been selling symbolism over substance for so long that many voters can't seem to see the difference.

Posted by: TommyBoy | 2006-01-11 12:30:27 PM


We need to look at the root causes of gun violence. It's not the guns, but Liberal policies. Guns are obtained by gang members who use them to protect their turf and themselves. People join gangs because they are poor. They're poor because they doin't have jobs. They don't have jobs because Liberal policies have created a broken welfare culture that values sentiment over hard work and sacrifice.

It's not the guns; it's the Liberal society we live in.


Banning guns is ridiculous; they're already effectively banned. What's next? Banning crime? I can see it now: "Liberals promise to make crime illegal".

Martin is done and the Liberals are gonna have a meltdown after this election.

Posted by: Norman Lorrain | 2006-01-11 12:44:15 PM


Who's Tommy, a vision is an idealogy. That is the place to start. The key is to have a well thought out plan on how to get there. The first step is to figure out where we are, what problems exist and where to get there from here. visions are usless unless their is a path to attain it. One Liberal vision that hurts my brain is bilingualism because it is not acheivable. Heck, not even Quebec wants it. They have used the notwithstanding clause to implement their french language laws. Do you still want my opinion?

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-01-11 1:39:13 PM


Out with AdScam Martin -----> Mikhail Ignatieff. Dump Martin campaign is on.>> "we need troops, warriors and chieftains" ready for the political battle over Quebec." more >>

January 11, 2006 - TDH sources back in Ontario tell us that Michael Ignatieff has been less than complimentary towards Paul Martin and the central campaign team in private conversations to Liberals (including some that took place at his event last night), making his double meaning quotes in the Toronto Star (posted below) all the more suspicious.

January 11, 2006 - If there was absolutely any doubt as to whether Michael Ignatieff's $300 a plate fundraiser last night was a leadership campaign kickoff, and completely unrelated to his current attempt to become an MP, just take a look at these quotes:

"Senior Liberals turned out last night to hear rookie politician Michael Ignatieff warn that Canada is facing a national unity crisis in which "we need troops, warriors and chieftains" ready for the political battle over Quebec." > more
http://www.tdhstrategies.com/home.html

Posted by: maz2 | 2006-01-11 1:40:17 PM


Please, I beg of you all who are Westerners, Conservatives, Traditionalists or whatever is not Canadian Liberal, listen to what Proud so honestly writes about his feelings concerning Westerners: "your gun-totin' high-fallutin', will-give-george-bush-fellatio-for-a-pat-on-the-back, red neck, racist, intolerant, country bumpnkin ways!!!!" Read and re-read this, for it is the opinion not of one impolite writer but of *many* Central Canadians, as well (I would submit) of the Prime Minister and his government. They truly believe that Albertans in particular are "gun-totin' high-fallutin', will-give-george-bush-fellatio-for-a-pat-on-the-back, red neck, racist, intolerant, country bumpnkin[s]" Now consider how much that makes you wish to hold Proud's "Canadian values" and toremain as part of Proud's Liberal Ottawa-led country. Do not write off Proud's opinions; Westerners need to listen to this man and believe that he is telling us exactly what he and his ilk believe about us.

Posted by: Douglas | 2006-01-11 2:23:03 PM


Douglas: as an Albertan who lived in the GTA for three years, I am used to his rantings as all too familiar rhetoric from Ontarians. I wonder who Ontarians hate more: Albertans or Americans. On Jan 23, let's give them real reason to hate Albertans when one of our own takes over and shakes their precious tree loose of all the nuts.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-01-11 2:29:54 PM


I have been reading the posts on this thread and, as a Western Canadian (and lifetime Albertan at that), it bothers me to see how quickly people proporting to be from the "East" (Ontario) and the "West" (Alberta) degrade into name-calling and vitriol instead of having an intelligent debate on the issues. Maybe I'm naive, but I think one of the biggest problems in this country is the fact that we no longer tolerate the true debate of issues. Maybe it's too hard to think through the key points (and I'm saying this to both sides of the political divide). It's obviously easier just to denigrate each other, assassinate each others' character, and write each other off as ignorant and not worth the time of talking to - so that's what many of us choose to do.

Take gun control as an example. Both sides agree that it is not good for society for criminals to be walking around on the streets with guns - especially when they are ready to use them on innocent people. The fact that there has been a handgun registry in this country since the 1940's that has NOT been controversial would suggest that this is what could accurately be called a "Canadian value".

Recently, though, there has been an increase in the number of handgun-related killings, especially in urban jurisdictions. However, people obviously disagree on how best to respond to these events. The two primary camps seem to be: 1) those that propose enhancing the existing legal framework, thus making the handgun completely unavailable through "legal" channels within the country (that is, banning them), and 2) those that feel that the existing legal framework is sufficient to address the problem, but that the enforcement of the existing model needs to be enhanced.

Both of these groups seem to have representatives that want to increase the penalties related to handgun crime, so in that way they are in common.

The key arguments against the first camp seem to be summarized as: "enacting a new law doesn't ensure that it will be enforced (especially when entire provinces can and will opt out)", and "if existing laws haven't been enforced, how can they be seen to be insufficient - it is the enforcement that is insufficient", and "if guns cannot be obtained legally in Canada, or stolen from Canadians, then they WILL be obtained from the US or other jurisdictions, which again becomes an issue of enforcement".

The key arguments against the second camp seem to be summarized as: "the existing legal framework isn't sufficient to solve the problem, society needs to rid itself completely of handguns because their presence provides the opportunity for handgun-related crime", and "enforcement of existing gun ownership and related law has been sufficient".

(Now, that is my take on it - so feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented anyone's position.)

I note that neither side seems to be talking about the role of society/parents in shaping the views of individuals towards guns. For example, I was raised to NOT see a gun as a legitimate way to solve problems, but apparently not everyone is. The only argument I have seen related to this so far is that "social exclusion = acceptance of handgun as legitimate problem solver".

The true debate then, if you agree with my assessment above, seems to hinge upon whether you accept that the current levels of enforcement have been adequate (any proof one way or another out there?), and upon whether you think that criminals will be able to "source" handguns from locations other than Canada if the entirety of the Canadian supply runs out.

Rather than us taking intellectual potshots at each other, why don't we talk about these points?

Posted by: Active Listener | 2006-01-11 2:53:46 PM


Is this for real?
Quote: "Martin spokesperson Melanie Gruer told CP that there is no mention of the clause in the leaked version because it was printed over the weekend -- before the prime minister made the comment."
It certainly is comforting to know that the Liberal platform is based solidly on the whims of Paul Martin and whatever idiocy might spew from his pathetic mouth at any given moment. This is a party that is beyond desperate. No wonder all these brain-dead idiots from Ontario are so freaked out. I would be too if I was attempting to support incompetence of this magnitude.
Keep talking Paul, you're digging your own grave with every syllable.
Congratulations to Canada's next Prime Minister: Stephen Harper. Handed to him as a result of the unprecedented ineptitude and disarray of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Posted by: ProudAlbertan | 2006-01-11 3:01:26 PM


I don't get it...Harper and his 'ilk' are bashed for being pro-American (America is our neighbour, not our Nation), yet Martin wants to take out the notwithstanding clause, and make our constitution more like the American one!

Posted by: beancounter | 2006-01-11 3:06:52 PM


I find it difficult to understand the lack of rage of Canadians at the terrible suggestions (plans?) of Martin to eliminate Section 33 of the Charter (the Notwithstanding Clause). Coupled with his statement to the effect that "we can't have politicians overriding the Supreme Court of Canada" these two concepts would (a) destroy our political freedoms ("the supremecy of parliament") and (b) substitute the "divine right" of the Supreme Court to rule. Surely we got rid of that when our parliamentary forefathers got rid of the "divine right" of kings to rule back in the 1600's. No wonder Martin wants to confiscate the guns of Canadians. If he gets these ideas through, we'll need them.

Posted by: Gunner | 2006-01-11 3:24:13 PM


I find it difficult to understand the lack of rage of Canadians at the terrible suggestions (plans?) of Martin to eliminate Section 33 of the Charter (the Notwithstanding Clause). Coupled with his statement to the effect that "we can't have politicians overriding the Supreme Court of Canada" these two concepts would (a) destroy our political freedoms ("the supremacy of parliament") and (b) substitute the "divine right" of the Supreme Court to rule. Surely we got rid of that when our parliamentary forefathers got rid of the "divine right" of kings to rule back in the 1600's. No wonder Martin wants to confiscate the guns of Canadians. If he gets these ideas through, we'll need them.

Posted by: Gunner | 2006-01-11 3:27:39 PM


Gunner,

I agree - if Martin's plans went through, then we would effectively only be voting for who gets to place judges onto the SCC - which would become the real government of Canada. If you want to talk about a "democratic deficit" in this country - that proposal would be the ultimate example.

Other politicians should be the most upset, because it would invalidate their reason for being (I kind of wonder how many Liberals really support him on this one). It seems he's backed into a corner and is trying to use this item as a "wedge" issue to keep whatever support he has in Toronto on his side. If he wins (which is becoming doubtful), we'll have to hope that he finds reasons to not actually follow through on his "promise".

Posted by: Active Listener | 2006-01-11 3:39:41 PM


Don't the provinces have to agree to the Charter change? Perhaps we can take the duct tape off Ralph's mouth if he agrees only to discuss Martin's Charter amendment...

Posted by: beancounter | 2006-01-11 3:42:11 PM


beancounter,
Let's keep Ralph quiet for twelve more days, OK? I'm sure that the other candidates will start discrediting Martin on their own without Ralph's input.

Posted by: ProudAlbertan | 2006-01-11 3:49:24 PM


I've been reading some of the post on here, and I can only say I'm... not surprised by comments from left-leaning bleeding-hearts who believe the LIEberals are soooo good for us. These are the same people that believe whatever shit the LIEberals shovel at them. So logically then, they must believe that parents would spend childcare dollars on beer and popcorn instead of paying for childcare OUTSIDE of a government daycare centre. Get yer heads outta yer arses!!
budget: we all make one for running our homes. We KNOW what our expenses are, and put a little bit aside for unexpected things. The government also makes a budget, and KNOWS what it's expenses are. So why then does it need $13,000,000,000 more than it's expenses this year? Last year was $9,000,000,000 more than expenses.Based on patterns, I'd say left to the LIEberals, next yrs surplus should be, oh.... $17,000,000,000 more than it needs.Why does it need all that much more? So the Bay St.Power-Brokers they are in bed with can plan more ways to line their pockets, their company's pockets, and their friends pockets of course!! Spread some rumours, create some fearmongering and the bleeding-hearts will fall right into line like they are supposed to, without their even being aware of it! Make sure you get your 'pat-on-the-head' as they go back to their "life of entitlement"!
Ever notice how the LIEberals don't do anything until they think they might lose power? That might explain why they call an election 2 1/2 yrs into a mandate, then after they win, they let the sh*t hit the fan. Afterall, the voters will have forgotten / forgiven us in 4 years time! How many times have we seen this from them? Still... people keep electing them.
East vs West: I doubt that the problem of "western alienation" is going to be solved.For those in Ontario and Quebec, get it right! MANY people in BC and Alberta are SICK and TIRED of supporting your sorry asses!! The only provinces to send money to Ottawa and NOT get it back, are BC and Alberta. Ottawa has taken billions out of the economies of these 2 provinces over the last 30 years. Something to the tune of 135 billion from Alberta (that's $135,000,000,000) less from BC. 2...2!!!! 2 provinces paying Ottawa, and Ontario and Quebec at the top of the "get paid" list. This is nothing new. The government arrests farmers for selling their own grain! Both provinces have more people than Toronto, but less seats than it! We watch hard earned money, Canadian's money squandered in programs that don't work, schemes, kickbacks, lavish spending, patronage etc etc. Why should we out here PAY for this kind of service? How about you bleeding-heart Upper and Lower Central Canadians pay for it and we'll keep our money right here. Oh, and just a side note. There is nothing, NOTHING the west needs from central canada. The west has agriculture, forestry, mining, fishing, sea ports, oil & natural gas, clean water. What does central canada have that we need? NOTHING! The west could easily go it on their own, central canada sure as hell couldn't! When Ottawa and Bay St. get a divorce, call us! until then do Canada a favour, inform yourself before you vote! An un-informed vote is a dangerous thing!

Posted by: Snookie | 2006-01-11 3:55:43 PM


Active Listener. I appreciate your candor. Enforcement is indeed the main problem, but the enforcement problem is actually several problems in one. Once the crime is committed, there is not enough enforcement by the overworked police, boarder guards and customs officials, the lax sentencing and anti-enforcement interpretation of the laws by the liberal judges, the parole boards letting some convicted criminals out after 1/6th (if I remeber correctly) of their sentence has been served, the three for one rule where time served gets multiplied by 3 before being taken off the sentence, and overcroweded jails. That does not even touch the prevention side that has to be done by families starting when the kids are infants.

I would mention the ever popular recreation centers except that we had them when I was young but they were shut down in my area due to a lack of use. I guess they were not so popular after all.

Am I missing any aspects?

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-01-11 3:57:56 PM


Yeah, I definately had my 'tongue(taped) in cheek' for that comment.
I agree though that the change to the Charter is dangerous, another nail in the coffin of the Liberal campaign I hope!

Posted by: beancounter | 2006-01-11 3:58:58 PM


Errrr....Isn't the SCC the government? I thought it was Parliament/Senate that made/passed laws and the courts enforced them. government has let the SCC and courts make laws and enforce them. Taking the "notwithstanding clause" out will just entrench this fascist system.

Posted by: Snookie | 2006-01-11 4:00:42 PM


I'd love for a reporter to ask Anne McLellan how they will convice the Provinces to approve the removal of that clause....cue the squirming!

Posted by: beancounter | 2006-01-11 4:15:10 PM


John,

Thanks for your perspective on this. I'd love to hear from others - representing both views if possible.

Posted by: Active Listener | 2006-01-11 4:21:40 PM


Snookie, your numbers are wrong. You are only looking at half the equation. The gap between what Ontario gave to the feds went, according to this site, http://www.strongontario.ca/english/, "over the last 10 years — from $2 billion to $23 billion."

The only have provinces when this, http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html, page was created, 2005-04-04, were Ontario and Alberta.

Did you know that if it was not for the Churchill Agreement that excludes hydro from Quebec's equalization payment calculation, they would be a have province? That is why Harper wants to exclude natural resources from the calculation. That would help Alberta, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan for their oil, and, hopefully Ontario and BC for their mining. That would help to level the playing field.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-01-11 5:02:11 PM


I'm a small 'l' liberal, retired military pilot who has never read a blog before and am unsure of it's value to society but I'll take this opportunity to comment on some of the political invective I've read. You rabid conservatives, and certainly you Liberals may or may not like what I have to say but read and digest.

Gun control- the Liberal's policy is too weak. Having been trained to use many weapons in the military I know the dangers wide spread weapons and their use and I've been around people who profess to be weapons savy and oft times it has been scary. Hand guns are dangerous and only the police and the military need have them. Hunting rifles are a different kettle of fish but everyone using them should havew a formal training course on their proper use and safety before they are free to wander our woods to get off 'sound shots' at percieved targets.
Norman Lorraine's point (above)that our gun woes are as a result of our 'Liberal' policies is somewhat suspect. He need only look to that font of 'right wing' thinking(certainly ain't liberal) to the south of us to realize that it isn't a 'Liberal' problem but a societal problem. The Gringos have a worse problem than do we Canucks but then again, they are better armed...scary.

Having said that, the billions of dollars spent on the governments gun control is indefencible. I suspect some 'Bean Counter' or minor funtionary got carried away and the government should have its 'pee thang' slapped.

Gay rights- a done deal and what has happened justed saved us years and years of litigation for those rights by the Gay Community. The Supreme Court has enough on its plate.

Having said that, the Liberals must be gone!

America Bashing- an Olympic sport in Canada during any election and understandable. The problem is the target..America isn't the real target, Bush is and Harper was a little hasty in his support of Bush.
Having said that, Martin's America bashing comes across as a desperate and cynical attempt to get votes and the Liberals must go.
The Conservatives cry 'corruption' when talking of the Liberals but history has shown that the Conservatives tend to putrify atalmost twice the rate of the Liberals.
Having said that, the Martin Liberals must take their proper place in Canadian history; they are beyond their shelf life and they must be gone!

In the past the grass roots of the Reform Party through to the present Conservative incarnation has had some scary elements and may continue to scare many Canadians but it is time for a change. The roll of the Conservative Party should be that of the 'plunger' for the malfunctioning toilet; flush the Liberals!
Hell, the Conservatives can't screw it up any worse than this last bunch of Liberals and they might even do better so they deserve a chance.

The good side effect will be that the deadwood and
muck that infests the Liberal Party will be flushed and allow a re-birth of a healthy and sane Liberal Party to provide a good alternative to the Consevative Party should they putrify like the present Liberals.

Posted by: Brian 'Stoof Driver' | 2006-01-11 5:11:18 PM


I'm a small 'l' liberal, retired military pilot who has never read a blog before and am unsure of it's value to society but I'll take this opportunity to comment on some of the political invective I've read. You rabid conservatives, and certainly you Liberals may or may not like what I have to say but read and digest.

Gun control- the Liberal's policy is too weak. Having been trained to use many weapons in the military I know the dangers wide spread weapons and their use and I've been around people who profess to be weapons savy and oft times it has been scary. Hand guns are dangerous and only the police and the military need have them. Hunting rifles are a different kettle of fish but everyone using them should havew a formal training course on their proper use and safety before they are free to wander our woods to get off 'sound shots' at percieved targets.
Norman Lorraine's point (above)that our gun woes are as a result of our 'Liberal' policies is somewhat suspect. He need only look to that font of 'right wing' thinking(certainly ain't liberal) to the south of us to realize that it isn't a 'Liberal' problem but a societal problem. The Gringos have a worse problem than do we Canucks but then again, they are better armed...scary.

Having said that, the billions of dollars spent on the governments gun control is indefencible. I suspect some 'Bean Counter' or minor funtionary got carried away and the government should have its 'pee thang' slapped.

Gay rights- a done deal and what has happened justed saved us years and years of litigation for those rights by the Gay Community. The Supreme Court has enough on its plate.

Having said that, the Liberals must be gone!

America Bashing- an Olympic sport in Canada during any election and understandable. The problem is the target..America isn't the real target, Bush is and Harper was a little hasty in his support of Bush.
Having said that, Martin's America bashing comes across as a desperate and cynical attempt to get votes and the Liberals must go.
The Conservatives cry 'corruption' when talking of the Liberals but history has shown that the Conservatives tend to putrify atalmost twice the rate of the Liberals.
Having said that, the Martin Liberals must take their proper place in Canadian history; they are beyond their shelf life and they must be gone!

In the past the grass roots of the Reform Party through to the present Conservative incarnation has had some scary elements and may continue to scare many Canadians but it is time for a change. The roll of the Conservative Party should be that of the 'plunger' for the malfunctioning toilet; flush the Liberals!
Hell, the Conservatives can't screw it up any worse than this last bunch of Liberals and they might even do better so they deserve a chance.

The good side effect will be that the deadwood and
muck that infests the Liberal Party will be flushed and allow a re-birth of a healthy and sane Liberal Party to provide a good alternative to the Consevative Party should they putrify like the present Liberals.

Posted by: Brian 'Stoof Driver' | 2006-01-11 5:13:18 PM


Hey, I said I was a rookie at this blog thing and besides, what I had to say bore repeating.

Posted by: Brian 'Stoof Driver' | 2006-01-11 5:20:28 PM


I was speaking with friend named Nicolas, from Victoria BC. He said that Pierre Pettigrew will probably loose his seat to a Bloc (heads). I asked him whether or not it would be impolite to dance in the streets when that happens. He said, 'well, no it would not be polite at all, but it would be a pleasure to watch!'

Well, I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to share with wonderful western conservatives, that although it is rude (and unlady-like or ungentlemanly for that matter) to dance in the streets when someone looses, it is OK to smile, and sing a few cheers! Nicolas said he would have beers with that.

I had a look at the Liberal red book pdf, and it occurred to me that either the photo of Paul Martin is at least 20 years old, or it has been digitally altered. Still, with the sheer desperation coming outta that guys mouth, it is clear he would do ANYTHING to look better in the media. Me and the other ladies feel that there is no way on earth he can cover up the mess he has made to our Canadian ARMED Forces. And that's just for starters! BTW, for all the Liberal readers, your leader is a soggy banana!

And now, as we all know, the idiot is trying to get hand-guns banned. Throughout history, people have tried to ban weapons. What inevitably occurs is that someone else, with bigger and better weapons, comes along, and takes over.

And every country has an Army. It is either yours, or someone elses.

I did some reading, and there was a nation of people, in the lands that comprise India, who disarmed totally. I believe it was back in the 1,300's. An invading force came along and slaughtered 3,000,000 Hindus. No, that is not a typo!

Although nobody had the wherewithall to protect themselves, their women, their babies, and their children and grandparents, they had a society that had no weapons. So, they were nice and safe from eachother. Well, except maybe for the burnings, poisonings, rapes and strangulations!

If we leave everything to the Liberals, some nation might just think that we are all sitting ducks! I am voting for the Conservatives because they have recognized the true fact that a hand gun cannot kill anyone, unless there is a person holding, and pointing the hand gun at someone. It has to be loaded by someone, and the trigger has to be pulled. The person doing the shooting could, as other Centuries have shown, resorted to anything, to do their harm. Maybe the Liberals are going to ban minds that are capable of bad intentions! It could read as a Declaration! Could look as follows:

"The glib Declaration to end all minds that are capable of bad intentions!"

Sure, that would stop all the criminals from doing bad things, and hurting people! NOT!!!

And having no security arms at all, is an invitation to disaster. Criminals must be sent the message that, if they do the crime, they are going to do the time!

How many ladies would be attacked, if the attacker knew they all had weapons. It is a lady's right to defend herself, and Martin and his gang of nutbars is doing us all wrong, by taking us miles away from having the wherewithall to defend ourselves!

And which of the Liberals came up with the notion that sentences could be done concurrently?

Another person I am going to relish in seeing loose their seat, is Parrish! If she still stands by her very rude statement, that she made regarding the American President, then she should be told, firmly and loudly, that what she says is what she is!

Till next time, so long, from Lady!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-01-11 6:10:50 PM


Just did a search in the "The little Red Riding Book" on honest results = 0

It justs gets better and better

Posted by: RSW | 2006-01-11 7:13:05 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.