…”won’t somebody think of the children?” — but that’s always canceled out by the fight against imaginary “racism”, especially if it involves a “persecuted” identity group that wants us all dead… so… carry the one…
Michael Yon and “Resistance is Futile”
“Individualism” – bad for co-operation.
Add yours in the comments.
ET:
Please go back and read your grade 1 grammar textbook. You are demonstrating your reading comprehension problems yet again. If someone has not done a single thing or said a single thing about something in years of being in politics, he has not made a priority out of it. If he mentions it in once in a speech then all you can say is he has said he will now make it a priority. But he said a lot of things in his throne speech, are all of these “big priorities”? We’ll see. Juries out. Given his view of federal-provincial relations, I doubt he’d do anything but I strongly encourage him to do so. Quebec strongly opposes a common securities commission so I expect Flaherty will stop pushing for one soon too. But on this I am more than willing to be impressed by a Harper reversal.
And no, you do not have to be educated in English in Quebec before you can send your kids to an English school in Quebec. If you want to argue about a law, ET, then you should try reading it. Or at least stay within a decade or so of a current reading of it. Bill 101, before the Charter (which was over 2 decades ago), referred to being educated in English in Quebec. The Charter of French Language Rights does not have that Quebec restriction.
Kyoto Who?
This Kyoto Who:
http://multimedia.thestar.com/images/assets/178289_3.JPG
The experts say!
Notice failed in quotes: “failed”.
Citoyen Dion’s Kyoto has been replaced by Protocol (of the Elders of Zion). Scratch a lefty and what erupts? See NRM Interview.
…-
Time to ditch Kyoto, experts urge
Margaret Munro , CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2007
It is time for a radical rethink on climate change, says a report in the journal Nature this week.
Echoing sentiments long associated with politicians such as Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President George Bush, the report says it is time to ditch the Kyoto Protocol because the United Nations treaty has “failed.” …-
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c3385bf0-a6d4-469a-8122-282b4904a92c&k=64102
Arbour is silent; the feministas are silent. Citoyen Dion is gagged. Socialism is silent.
…-
‘Crimes against humanity’ in Iran
Canada denies refugee claimant due to war crimes
Stewart Bell, National Post
Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2007
TORONTO – Canada’s refugee agency has ruled that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard committed crimes against humanity, citing the militia’s use of secret jails, torture and violence against dissidents.
The Immigration and Refugee Board wrote in the recent decision that the Revolutionary Guard, a key component of Tehran’s state security apparatus, was responsible for human rights abuses and atrocities.
The board released the decision on its Web site on Oct. 11. It concerns Sayed Amin Hoseyni Bob Anari, a former member of the Guard — also known by its Persian name Pasdaran — who had sought refuge in Canada. …-
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/canada/story.html?id=892f3d19-a817-46c1-9189-3c809375c0df&k=25330
Hey Ted,
Funny but we make immigrants pass a civics test, too. Is this some sort of racist nazi plot against immigrants too stupid to learn anything about their adopted country?
I agree that is should be English or French but you’re jumping the shark on this issue.
The feds confered special powers over immigration to quebec long ago. I not sure under who (lib or pc,) not that it matters but it was done.
Cry to them.
Can you take this guy ted out from tips of the day?
too many stupid posts he puts here!
No, ted, you are wrong. You are doing your usual slithering. Don’t move into semantic slithering.
If you are an anglophone, living in Quebec, and went to an English school in Quebec, then, you can send your children to the public English school.
If you are a bilingual (Dutch-English) individual, living in Quebec, and did NOT attend an English school, then, your children must attend the local French public school. If you are a francophone, then, you cannot send your children to the local English public school.
Again, your reasoning, ted, is illogical. You insist that a concept can only be defined as ‘priority’ if and only if, it has been mentioned umpteen times in the past. But, what if the individual decides that a particular concept is, now, important – and begins to focus his attention on it? To you, this concept cannot be important – because he MUST have mentioned it all those years in the past. Totally illogical.
By the way, I suggest that everyone read Andrew Coyne’s National Post column on ‘A more perfect economic union’ of today – on provincial and federal relations. Coyne says that Harper’s agenda ” is the biggest thing in constitutional politics since the Clarity Act, possibly since patriation”.
And the JCPC 1937 decision rejected that intra vires argument, ie, it rejected the federal claim that its taxing powers meant that it could distribute those taxes unfettered by the differences in the federal and provincial distribution of powers. It is false to claim, as does the theory of ‘unlimited spending power of the federal state’ by virtue of its taxing powers, means that the provision of public services are excluded from the distribution of political powers.
RE TJs comment.
“Am I the only one who is sick and tired of hearing about Arar, and his whining, and his claimed torture?
More importantly though I think this case illustrates how foolish we have become in the West.
If Arar is to be believed (big if), and the Syrians did in fact torture him, why isn’t the Canadian government going after the Syrians for compensation money.
Only in Canada would the government stick taxpayers with a compensation bill for torture carried out by another country, and make no effort to recover those dollars from the country that performed the torture in the first place.
What utter fools we have become”
no , your not the only one. CBCpravda and CTV(tass) go on and on about it, but never had said much about “the torture” it could have been the “comfy chair” or “soft pillow” from pythons spanish inquistion . certainly it wasnt being send through a shredder like Udi Hussein used to do but didnt get any serious coverage. or the relative lap of luxury that CBCpravdas favourite terrorist son Omar Khadr sits in.I believe there are S &M types that pay for things worse than these two experienced. check out a daily dose of CSI
CBCpravda “All Khadr, All the Time”
CTV(tass) “All Arab , All the Time”
Kneel (god I hate the yanks but live with them) Mcdonald.
CBCpravda “your global warning station”
You really do have a hard time reading regular English, don’t you ET. For shame. I feel sorry for your students.
You said: “You can’t send your child to an English school.” By your own admission you were completely wrong on that. Read Bill 101. If you or your spouse were educated in English, and that is anywhere in Canada, then you can send your kid to an English school. That applies whether you are francophone or anglophone. In fact, technically, your statement that “You can’t send your child to an English school” is further wrong because any parent, if they can afford it, can send their kid to an English private school. And I thought you had to be a good reader to become an ivory tower academic.
As for Harper and priorities, all Harper has done is said he is going to make this a priority. It is a matter of actions vs. words, ET. You are drinking way too much kool-aid to automatically think that if a politician says he’s going to do something he will for certain do it. That was Martin’s problem: he said a lot of things, but he didn’t actually do much so were they all really priorities in hindsight? Obviously not. All I said is we’ll see if it is or isn’t. Other than a few seconds of a single speech, we don’t have any indication this will truly be a priority. He hasn’t mentioned it before ever, and in fact has send things that tend to the opposite view, so I have some serious doubts. Especially when Quebec opposes him.
But if he does push for a strong federalism rather than even more decentralization, he has a real chance of winning someone like me over. So I agree wholeheartedly with Coyne on this and go further: if he does make it a priority, then it will indeed be the biggest thing in constitutional politics since the Canada Health Act (since the Clarity Act does not actually propose doing much day-to-day).
The BNA gave the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over Trade and Commerce and I would love to see a PM with some principles and balls enough to say that means no employment or trade barriers within our own country. It is ludicrous and self-defeating for us to have interprovincial trade and employment barriers.
Harper has not spoken of or done anything of any lasting significance since he took office, and this would plant the seeds of a real legacy worth writing about 50 years from now.
Forgot one point, ET.
You said: “And the JCPC 1937 decision rejected that intra vires argument, ie, it rejected the federal claim that its taxing powers meant that it could distribute those taxes unfettered by the differences in the federal and provincial distribution of powers. It is false to claim, as does the theory of ‘unlimited spending power of the federal state’ by virtue of its taxing powers, means that the provision of public services are excluded from the distribution of political powers.”
And I’ve been very clear: it is the combination of the taxing and spending powers and the equalization provisions of the Constitution. To wit, the Parliament and Government of Canada are committed to: “providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians” and “making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation”.
You are reading a 2 decades old version of Bill 101 and a 8 decades old version of the Constitution.
Ted, honestly, the Liberals have never given a fig about sections 91 and 92. The Liberal vision of Canada featuring a strong central government is fundamentally unconstitutional. Un-Canadian, if you will.
The call goes out: Destroy PET’s Charter.
Bury it in PET’s Cemetery; no marker required.
…-
Councillor Says Rights Charter Could Destroy Canada
A councillor from Herouxville, the small town at the centre of Quebec’s debate on integrating immigrants, says the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a tool to destroy the country. Andre Drouin says citizens must wrestle control away from the courts. He says that the only other solution is for Quebec, or any other province, to separate.
Drouin made the declaration today in Trois-Rivieres at the hearings into reasonable accommodation. …-
http://www.940news.com/local.php?news=17471
Before submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. Thankyou.
remember the CBCpravda week long story and outrage over comments about Paris Stronach or Olivia Chow.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/071024/K102404AU.html
CBCpravda “All Liberal , All the time”
ted, you know perfectly well that I’m not referring to private schools, so don’t even bring up the subject. And don’t move into personal insults and ad hominem arguments – that tactic, like your other argumentative tactics (ad populam, circular), is fallacious. It’s also childish.
What I’m referring to is the hereditary definition of language in Quebec, which states that if you are a citizen of Canada living in Quebec, then you can’t send your child to an English school unless you, yourself, had gone to one. Otherwise – it has to be the French school. No francophone and no allophone can send their child to the English school.
You, with your voiced outrage over the PQ’s statement that IF you want to be employed in the public service in Quebec, THEN, you have to be able to speak French, have no sense of outrage over this Quebec law. No sense of outrage over their language police and forbidding the use of English on signs. Hmmm.
Bill 101 and the Constitution may be old, in your view, but, they are still law.
Equalization payments (section 36/2) say nothing about the nature of the uses to which those monies are put. That means that this section doesn’t alter ‘the authority of the federal parliament or of the provincial legislatures’.
So- this has nothing to do with the point some of us are arguing – which is that the federal govt has, since Trudeau, intruded more and more into the areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The fact that you dislike Harper and feel that he has done ‘nothing of lasting significance’ since he took office – that’s your personal view. I don’t agree.
Harper is not promoting a ‘strong federalism’ but a decentralized federation – one where each governance has its own duties; the federal and the provincial. And, getting the federal govt out of the provincial domain…something that the Liberals, as centralists, got us into some years ago.
Find the MSM goof/tipoftheslonge in the snip below. MSM mixfuses G and F. As Freud said: it’s revealing.
The cut’n’run Liberals fold/retreat/fade to a grease spot on the floor of the House of Commons.
Electile dysfunction, indeed.
Finish the job. Put the Librano$ away; give them a tenner.
…-
“But Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said the opposition should be focused on the legislation promised in the speech, not the speech itself.”
“There has never been a government in this country — minority or majority — that’s ever been defeated on a throne speech,” said Flaherty.
“A throne speech is entirely a symbolic gesture. It carries no legal consequences. What’s important is the legislation that flows during the session of Parliament, and we will consider each one of those pieces of legislation on their merits. If they don’t pass muster, we’ll vote against them.”
…-
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071023/throne_speech_071024/20071024?hub=TopStories
Throne speech passes, Liberals abstain from voting
The purpose of official bilingualism is to allow French Canadian Quebecers to live anywhere in English Canada without ever having to learn one word of English.
The original architect of Bill 101 was Pierre Trudeau who wrote about having it as the language law in Quebec 10 years before the PQ passed their Bill 101, which is exactly why he did not challenge it in the courts.
Pierre Trudeau originated Bill 101.
As I am fond of saying, if I had a dollar for every lie told about Official Bilingualism in Canada, I’d be a billionaire.
ahhhh, George, I believe that in “Reader’s Tips” there is no topic per se although at times there are some links to interesting possible talking points.
Ted, just when was the constitution written and when was it changed last? It isn’t something that is supposed to change as the tide no matter what the Supreme Court wants to believe. I also read bill 101 the same way as ET but then again there always has been a set of rules for Quebec and one for the rest of Canada. viva la difference, eh.
“92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,…
“2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.”
And here’s the rub: is the income tax a form of Direct Taxation?
———-
While we’re on the subject of inadequate reading comprehension, could someone with that kind of debility please explain to me how this could be interpreted as a law:
“We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased: –
“(a) To refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.
“(b) To provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to ensure the extinction of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, and of a dignity or title as a peer of the realm, on the death of a person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada at present in enjoyment of an hereditary title of honour, or titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, and that thereafter no such title of honour, titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, shall be accepted, enjoyed or used by any person or be recognized.
“All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration.”
I can’t quite see Parliament humbly approaching, praying and beseeching Her Majesty to let the Government of Canada to issue security certificates.
Postscript: Last time I checked, an instrument passed by Parliament also has to be later passsed in the Senate – after three readings in each house – and subsequently given royal assent before it becomes a legal instrument (a statute) that’s binding upon the conduct of the people of Canada. The only exception that I know of are regulations that are given authoriity by any such statute. After all, it’s nonsensical (ultra vires) to slap regulations upon an instrument that does not qualify as a statute in the first place.
1- Is the income tax a form of Direct Taxation ?
Yes – to quote the SCC
> A direct tax [is] one demanded from the very person who it is intended or desired should pay it and an indirect tax [is] one demanded from one person in the expectation and intention that that person indemnify him‑
2- That’s the Nickle Resolution of 1919 – it’s a resolution and not legally binding. It was also made back when we were still a dominion ( i.e a colony)
If you value your dinners and wish them to stay part of your gastro-intestinal processes, do not watch The Fifth Estate tonight. I was unfortunate to see the first three minutes, and it’s such a drive-by smear against the anti-AGW camp that it made me gag.
The CBC. Stifling debate, killing dissent, and promoting anti-Americanism, one tax dollar at a time.
More than 1 million unable to vote: Elections Canada
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071023/federal_voters_071023/20071023?hub=Canada&s_name=
Yukon Gold –
They deserve to be smeared ! How could anyone be anti Art Gallery of Windsor : )
Texas Canuck:
The Constitution has undergone many small changes over its history. If you look at the properly published version you will see many references to repealed and many odd section numbering like in the Constitution Act 1867: section 49, 51, 51A, 52, 53 – 51A having been added in 1915. If you are an information/constitutional/political nerd like me, you might find this link interesting because it gives you the full constitution with links to its history.
The last significant constitutional change was in 1982 with the Constitution Act 1982 which not only brough in the Charter of Rights but also equalization and a constitution amending formula.
In fact, it is this last constitutional change that forced Bill 101 to be changed (expanded the exception ET and I have discussed here to apply to all Canadians, not just Quebecers, despite what ET claims) and the function of the federal Parliament to be expanded (in Part III) as I laid out above. So there is truth to say that Trudeau expanded federal powers but when the constitution says you can do it – i.e. specifies the nature of the uses to which federal tax monies can be put – it is difficult to argue it is unconstitutional.
Communist Duch, or Kaing Guek Eav, was no match for lberia in the genocide business. lberia killed untold millions.
…-
Photographer to testify at tribunal
A former photographer at a Khmer Rouge[communist] prison has been summoned to testify as a witness before a UN-supported Cambodian genocide tribunal.
Nhem En, 47, said the tribunal’s co-investigating judges have ordered him to appear before them on November 1.
The judges required his appearance regarding the criminal case against his former boss, Duch, or Kaing Guek Eav, Nhem En said.
Duch headed the former Khmer Rouge S-21 prison and torture centre.
Duch has been detained by the tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity committed when the Khmer Rouge regime held power in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979.
The group’s radical policies caused the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people from starvation, overwork, disease and execution. …-
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paTribunal_tue07_cambodia_tribunal&show_article=1
ET:
Now you are getting completely nonsensical.
“You […] have no sense of outrage over this Quebec law. No sense of outrage over their language police and forbidding the use of English on signs.”
Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but the PQ introduced their bill this week, October 2007. It is current news. In fact, this all started because of an item in TODAY’S news. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bill 101 was made into law in, what? 1974!!! It is an outrageous law and it is an offensive law and it is an unconstitutional law and it is an abhorrent law… it is also an OLD law and I happen to be one of those types who don’t feel the need to repeat my outrage every day in every post over offensive laws passed three decades ago!! What I don’t get is how you can think Bill 101 is offensive but this PQ bill is A-OK with you. Bill 101 says you have to make your French sign bigger than your English sign – and that offends you. The PQ bill says if you don’t speak French you can’t hold any public office in the entire provice, even if your locality is English like in several wards in Montreal, even if there is enough English support for an English uniligual elected official – and that doesn’t offend you in the least.
Frankly, I have a sneaking suspicion that you only side with the separatist PQ party on this because I staked out a position opposing it.
Oh, and then there is this asine comment: “Bill 101 and the Constitution may be old, in your view, but, they are still law.”
No, if they have been amended or otherwise altered by subsequent constitutional changes or court interpretations, which is the case here, then they are not “still law”. The Charter had a significant impact on Bill 101 and the only parts of it have survived through use of the notwithstanding clause. The equalization clauses – which do indeed refer to the nature of nature of the uses to which federal tax monies can be put – affected, among other things, “public services”. And correct me if I’m totally off base here, but I’m pretty sure universal health care might qualify as a “public servic”.
If you value your dinners and wish them to stay part of your gastro-intestinal processes, do not watch The Fifth Estate tonight. I was unfortunate to see the first three minutes, and it’s such a drive-by smear against the anti-AGW camp that it made me gag.
The CBC. Stifling debate, killing dissent, and promoting anti-Americanism, one tax dollar at a time.
Posted by: Yukon Gold
======================
Blow up your TV and fire up you computer instead. There are sooooo many really, really good talk radio shows now available over the net that TV is dieing – the sooner the better, as far as I’m concerned. Try On Demand Rawlco for a good Canadian one and Townhall.com for an American one.
Don’t be egoistic, ted; I’m siding with the PQ position because it is pragmatic. I don’t see how, in Quebec, you should feel that you have the right, although unable to speak French, apply for a public office.
There is no such thing in Quebec, in the public service, as an ‘English only’ environment. You may operate in a ward with majority English speakers, but, as a public servant, you have to deal with the provincial govt and bureaucracy, and the municipal bureaucrats in the rest of Montreal and in Quebec – and THEY SPEAK FRENCH. So, if you can’t communicate with anyone other than your loyal constituents – then, you are pragmatically USELESS to your constituents. Now – why do you refuse to accept that basic fact?
The PQ position on speaking French if you want to be in public office in Quebec is most certainly not discriminatory or racist – as you maintain. It’s reality.
Do you accept that someone aspiring for public office in Ontario, should be able to speak English? Hmmm?
No, because a law is ‘old’ doesn’t mean that it should be consigned to irrelevance, as you have done. Bill 101 remains discriminatory. You don’t seem bothered by the Quebec language police. Why not? Because it’s old? Discrimination doesn’t bother you unless it’s new? No, the law says that you CANNOT have a sign in your own language. No Chinese, Korean, German – or English. None. That doesn’t bother you.
The law also says that IF you have a sign with your own language, it MUST have French on it, and the French must be, not merely bigger, but twice the size of that Korean, Chinese, English. Don’t trivialize discrimination, ted, just because it’s ‘old’.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper challenged Liberal leader Stéphane Dion to demonstrate the “courage of his convictions” yesterday and repeat, outside the protection of parliamentary immunity, allegations of election campaign illegality by Conservative staffers.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=d81282b3-4eae-4afa-b0cf-8b9f5f0c0b09
ET says “They are saying that anyone who wants to hold public office in Quebec must be able to speak the official language of Quebec, which is French.” — I admit I have not really been following this issue all that closely, but there is something somewhat unsavoury about the necessity of putting into law a requirement to speak French in order to hold public positions. For one thing, this usually means speaking AND writing — and we know of cases where fluent speakers have been forced to resign their positions because they did not adequately pass the French writing test. (One a nurse at a Jewish hospital in Montreal where she had no problem speaking French; the other more recent case of a dentist who had to give up his practice in Aylmer with a thousand happy patients because his written test was not adequate.) It unlikely that someone without some level of French would even try to run for public office. So what is being accomplished here? If a job requires French, it’s reasonable to formulate this as a mandatory requirement when posting for the position, but to formulate these things into law imposes bureaucratic heavy-handedness that is sure to create unfairness. Who’s to say whether I speak French adequately or not? I think this is a sleazy way of sticking it to non-Francophones and I think that the PQ should be embarassed by their thinly disguised bigotry.
Thanks, Nbob (9;06 PM). With respect to point #2, it’s nice to read someone pointing out the obvious with respect to the character of the resolution. (I already knew what it was.)
Yukon Gold — Was this the same one they always show . . . like about once every two months. “Tim Ball’s a shill for big oil, etc.??) It is not a stretch to suggest the CBC is engaging in fear mongering — while my sense is that other more circumspect news agencies are beginning to be a bit more objective about this issue. If they are not careful even their supporters will begin to drift away.
CTV(tass) must want an increase in the GST
http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071024.wgstt1024/business/Business/businessBN/ctv-business
An update from Belgium
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/10/the-man-in-the-.html
yes lberia.- but the article is about how this government means to fix it . not the reverse headline CTV(tass) gives it.
More than 1 million unable to vote: Elections Canada
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071023/federal_voters_071023/20071023?hub=Canada&s_name=
So that history can record this day for the Liberal Party
A record for the sake of posterity, should anyone wonder which Liberals today followed Stephane Dion’s lead and abstained when asked if they would challenge the Conservative vision for Canada.
On a page, then into Google, and so into history.
[…]
So to commemorate today’s Throne Speech victory, I’d like to make certain that history records (inasmuch as the search engines record history) the full list of Liberal Party members who decided that Canada was well served by the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party.
* Stéphane Dion, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Omar Alghabra, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Navdeep Singh Bains, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Susan (Sue) Barnes, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Colleen Beaumier, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Mauril Bélanger, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Don Bell, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Carolyn Bennett, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. etc.
Complete list here:
http://stevejanke.com/archives/244499.php
Kate,
Tommy Douglas’ birthday was the 20 of October, and even though it has already past, I thought maybe you could pay homage to him by posting some of his more famous quotes.
One of my favorites is from the 1937 Hansard in which Tommy argues on behalf of his fellow socialists against building the armed forces, I got it from “Douglas in Saskatchewan” by Robert Tyre:”Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive today? Oh, I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan.”
There are so many more in his M.A. thesis. Perhaps you could remind people that you have the thesis online and we could all go and pick out our favorite quotes. I find his quotes about single mothers being “common prostitutes” interesting, to say the least.
Let’s remind people about the man the NDP choose to worship.
Kate,
Tommy Douglas’ birthday was the 20 of October, and even though it has already past, I thought maybe you could pay homage to him by posting some of his more famous quotes.
One of my favorites is from the 1937 Hansard in which Tommy argues on behalf of his fellow socialists against building the armed forces, I got it from “Douglas in Saskatchewan” by Robert Tyre:”Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive today? Oh, I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan.”
There are so many more in his M.A. thesis. Perhaps you could remind people that you have the thesis online and we could all go and pick out our favorite quotes. I find his quotes about single mothers being “common prostitutes” interesting, to say the least.
Let’s remind people about the man the NDP choose to worship.
You are some entertaining piece of work, ET.
I would love for you to explain to me how “It is an outrageous law and it is an offensive law and it is an unconstitutional law and it is an abhorrent law” is the equivalent of “You don’t seem bothered by the Quebec language police”.
Like I said, I’m guessing the only reason you support the separatists here is because I’ve opposed them. Otherwise your support of this discrimination and restraint of democratic rights doesn’t make sense.
As House Leader Peter Van Loan said late in the day yesterday about the PQ bill: “Every Canadian has democratic rights. And those rights — to vote, to run for office — are fundamental. . . I don’t think those rights can be taken away.” I agree fully. It is disappointing you don’t think so ET.