Dave Yadallee's personal blog

FRom the Liberal PArty of Canada



The rules of our democracy



Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.



If that is the Liberal Party, then we will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament.



If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge.



That is our Constitution. It is the law of the land.



FURTHER MESSAGES



If we are given the privilege of forming the government, these are the rules that will guide us:



o We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda

that we bring to Canadians during this election.



o We will work with ALL parties to make Parliament work.



o We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties. In our system,

coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that

issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority

Parliaments to function.



o We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc

Quebecois.



o If we are facing a minority Parliament, we will work like Liberal Prime

Ministers Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin did: to provide

progressive government to our country by building support issue-by-issue

and by tapping into the goodwill, generosity and common sense of

Canadians across the political spectrum. These are the governments that

gave Canada the Canadian Flag, Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the

Kelowna Accord and a National Daycare Plan. With the right kind of

leadership another minority Parliament could strive for such heights.



We call on Mr. Harper to make clear his position:



o Does he agree with our description of the workings of our democratic

system?



o Why does he insist on fabricating lies about an impending coalition,

something he knows is false?



o Will he tell Canadians the truth about his secret hotel room meetings in

2004 with the Bloc Quebecois which resulted in a signed letter of

agreement to the Governor General, proposing a Conservative-NDP-Bloc

coalition?







Own up Prime Minister!!

http://www.infowars.com/prime-minister-harper-officially-endorses-nor...



Prime Minister Harper officially endorses North American Union



www.princegeorgecitizen.com

October 3, 2008



[Source no longer available from said site]



Prime Minister Stephen Harper's appearance at the New York City based Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) on 25 September 2007, was an official endorsement and expression of solidarity on the North American Union agenda.



[Do you knwo the CFR is interesting is dismembering nation states?]



Harvard University educated CNN Veteran anchor Lou Dobbs, has further confirmed the official endorsement of the Stephen Harper Minority Conservative government on North American Union, or 'New America'.



Mr. Harper has been apparently directed by the principal funders of the Conservative Party of Canada, which are ideologically linked to the CFR, to assimilate Canada into a new “Fortress North America” which is controlled by the U.S. political-military-industrial complex by no later than 2010.



[So are major CPCers traitors to Canada]



Building a ‘North American Community’



Indeed, the Stephen Harper government has been reported to be in the process of getting various Canadian government departments and agencies to “harmonize”, with U.S. governmental agencies, to expedite the assimilation of Canada into the neo-conservative vision of a “Fortress North America”.

The Council of Foreign Relations has indeed published a book on its North American Union manifesto entitled “Building a North American Community”.



[All right we wait a debate in parliament on thi!]



John Manley, former Deputy Prime Minister in the Paul Martin Liberal Government is a co-author of this book.



[John Manley was Chretien's DMP, not MArtin's AFAIK and 2 notes

Manley is a traitorous republican and now you have to wonder why

Harper assigned to Manly the options for getting out of Afghanistan]



Yes, my fellow Canadians, that is why Stephen Harper with ONLY a minority government, has been able to easily pursue North American Union, with what Mr. Lou Dobbs has referred to as a cabal at the CFR.



Political party elites including those among the Liberals and Bloc Québécois, have apparently been all co-opted by the very wealthy Council of Foreign Relations.



[Seem to be a majority of MPs are being told what to do, hence

maybe why no debate in the HoC].



North American Union architects have used the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to legitimate the take over of Canada by U.S. interests as a “logical outcome” of the terms of NAFTA.



“When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries.



[Fact or fiction?]



‘Security & Prosperity’



The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it,” states the Official Press Release for the book Building a North American Community, which is published by the CFR.

Mr. Harper’s speech at the CFR on 25 September 2007 affirms Mr. Harper’s Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPPNA) commitment to hand over Canada to full control by no later than 2010, to a political fraternity which is associated with the current U.S. Bush administration. Mr. Harper’s government apparently reports to the CFR.



[Obama is in, but Harper is still around]



In effect, the Government of Canada appears to be governed not from a sovereign Parliament in Ottawa, but run through a New York City-based political fraternity, which seeks to replace a democratic form of government, with the rule of society by a “Council of Wise Men”.



[Who is in charge of Canada?]



The architects of such a fascistic government look upon their vision of society, to be much more “efficient” in dealing with the need to vanquish enemies, i.e. “terrorists”.



[Are you saying there is a front?]



‘New World Order’



A terrorist is broadly defined by the architects of the North American Union, as any individual or group which opposes the New World Order agenda.



The CFR website also openly endorses the Conservative Party of Canada under Stephen Harper, alluding to his government having an alleged mandate to transform Canada substantively into a U.S. colony by implementing the recommendations of the CFR, book “Building a North American Community”.



[The CPC is being co-opted to sell Canada?]



There is therefore clearly a working association between the Harper government and the CFR to implement and execute the NAU agenda of the book entitled “Building a North American Community”, whether Canadians like it or not.



John Manley, former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, who is part of an apparent Liberal-Conservative-Bloc parliamentary alliance on the SPPNA, also endorses the replacement of the Canada-U.S. border, with a new international border around Canada, the U.S., and also Mexico.



[Never trust Manley nor Harper!]



“To make North America more competitive and secure, the three leaders should announce a plan to establish a North American security and economic community by 2010.



The aim of this community would be to guarantee a free, safe, just and prosperous North America.



The boundaries of the community would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter, within which the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly and secure.” John Manley stipulated on 23 March 2005, in the Wall Street Journal, in the aftermath of his Liberal government’s support of SPPNA.



Canadians who seek to save their country, must therefore seek to cancel NAFTA, as the legal basis for the greed-driven and fear associated pursuit of the destruction of Canada, under the pretext of the “War on Terrorism”.



[Time for this to go public big time if that is the case]



Next I find



http://exopoliticsnews.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/prime-minister-stephe...



Prime Minister Stephen Harper moves to put Canadian military under U.S. command



by Traci Lawson



Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper



The Stephen Harper government has endorsed a military Agreement with the U.S. Bush administration, which destroys the independence of Canada’s military. Why do you think that Canada’s armed forces has been forced to fight alongside the U.S. military, in the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan? This is no coincidence. Canada’s military in no longer substantively independent from the U.S. military command structure, thanks to the Stephen Harper government and their confederates. This Agreement also obliges Canada to provide financial and military personnel support to the U.S. in Iraq



[Was this to do with the HoC vote on the change of mission in Afghanistan?]



Canadians no longer have substantive control in policies regarding the deployment of Canada’s own military. The once great peacekeeping tradition of the Canadian Armed Forces has been set aside, under the apparent U.S. continentalist agenda of the Stephen Harper government.



[One moment, is this Canadian policy or Harper Policy?]



Jim Kouri, a NewsWithViews.com writer, reports in his article titled “North American Military Agreement Signed by U.S. and Canada” that, “in a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military Agreement on 14 February 2008.”



[Link please]



Mr. Kouri elaborates that this Agreement “allows the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis, according to a police commander involved in U.S. homeland security planning and implementation.”



[Wait a moment, when did this happen?]



The U.S. Bush administration has accomplished a goal that has alluded U.S. military planners since the War of 1812 that was lost to the Canadians: the military take-over of Canada. This is exactly the kind of process of colonial assimilation, that anti-Free Trade advocates had predicted back in the 1988 Canadian Federal Election.



[Please recall Mulroney was not in the bast interest of Canada and that

you have to wonder where this sudden surge for the FTA support and Mulroney

came from, eh Thomas D'Aquino]



Indeed, this fundamental breach of Canadian sovereignty is being carried out under the terms of the Security and Prosperity and Partnership North American Union (SPP-NAU) agenda, that in term has been substantively legitimated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA uses the pre-text of trade as a political deception for the take-over of Canada by the U.S. political-military-industrial complex



[Please cite where in the FTA/NAFTA and the SPP-NAU documents]



In Canada, this Agreement which paves the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other’s borders to fight “domestic emergencies”, was not announced either by Prime Minister Harper’s administration or the Canadian military. The Agreement met with protests and demonstrations by Canadians who are opposed to such treaties with the U.S. Bush administration.



[Who are these Canadian patriots who protested such an action?]



The Stephen Harper government, and the apparent traitorous parliamentarians who have elected to join in a “conspiracy of silence”, have now provided the U.S. political-military-industrial complex with a pretext to perpetrate the military occupation of Canada, against the constitutional will of Canadians.



[Time for a parliamentary debate on this if such is the case]



The Agreement was signed at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, by US Air Force General Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and US Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. General Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, without necessary parliamentary hearings and corresponding public scrutiny as required by Canadian constitutional law.



“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation’s requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said in a statement published on the USNORTHCOM website.



NewsWithViews.com also documents that in May 2007, U.S. President Bush took it upon himself to sign the National Security Presidential Directive 51 which is also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20. This neo-fascist directive authorizes the Office of the U.S. President to take on German Nazi Fuhrer-like powers to unilaterally declare a “national emergency”. The U.S. Office of the President can now usurp all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of U.S. Congress to do so.



Mr. Kouri also observes that, “While Americans are being kept in the dark about this treaty, Canadian citizens are being totally ignored by their government.”



“The extent of ‘bi-national’ military integration is unprecedented and has received absolutely no public debate in the House of Commons. If Canadians wish to read about the details of this military agreement, Canadians must go to the Northern Command website to see any evidence of the new agreement.



Canada’s mass-media has been taken over by North American Union (NAU) supporting interests associated with the North American Competitiveness Council, that was apparently created by the U.S. Bush administration, as a parallel American government.



“Once the Canadian people discover they can be [legally invaded] by U.S. troops, they will take to the streets and protest and use the very effective weapon of civil disobedience. Canadians will not stand for occupation by a foreign army same as Americans won’t,” said a conservative columnist and commentator.



“I’m surprised that the Canadian people haven’t already displayed their opposition to such a treaty. Economics is one thing, but military use of force is quite another. We have our own police, security and military forces, thank you. We don’t been Americans coming into Canada with weapons,” she said. “And Americans don’t need Canadian soldiers.



[Where is this article on News with Views you speak and it is time for

a debate on Canada's roles in the North American Ecomony!]



3rd source:



http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-to-attend-north-american-union-meet...



Obama To Attend North American Union Meeting



Obama To Attend North American Union Meeting 200709Obama



Pledge to remove secrecy surrounding Leader’s summit remains unfulfilled



Steve Watson

Infowars.net

Monday, July 20, 2009



President Obama will attend the controversial Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper next month, it has been revealed.



The White House had not responded to requests to verify Obama’s schedule during the second week of August, however, a statement from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs titled “Upcoming Travel by the President,” confirms that Obama will attend the recently re-branded

“North American Leader’s Summit” in Mexico.



“The president will travel to Guadalajara, Mexico, August 9-10 to attend the North American Leaders Summit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,” the announcement, reported by World Net Daily, states.



“The summit meeting will provide an opportunity for the United States, Mexico, and Canada to engage on a broad range of issues, including economic recovery and competitiveness in North America, our shared interest in energy and the environment, and cooperation among our governments to promote the safety and welfare of our citizens, including continued close cooperation to counter the A/H1N1 influenza pandemic.” the statement continues.



[So?!]



Obama To Attend North American Union Meeting 250509BANNER



The Security and Prosperity Partnership has become much maligned owing to it’s quasi secretive advancement of a North American integration agenda.



Last year, one month prior to the meeting in April, documents were uncovered relating the fact that heads of state of the U.S., Mexico and Canada were beseeching business leaders to launch public relations campaigns in order to counter critics of the SPP.



The documents detailed how corporate representatives were urged to “humanize” North American integration, promote NAFTA success stories to employees and unions and evolve the harmonization agenda “without fueling protectionism”.



The move was seemingly a response to the continued exposition of the integration agenda, which led to representatives within Congress petitioning the government on the secretiveness of the SPP and multiple states introducing resolutions calling on their federal representatives to halt work on the so called “North American Union”.



During his nomination campaign, Obama pledged to end the secrecy surrounding the SPP meetings and to conduct them with full transparency.



[Does anyone have any provable documentation?]



His decision to remain silent on whether or not he will even attend the meeting until just a few weeks beforehand has guaranteed advance criticism.



Critics will also cast a keen eye over Obama’s attendance given his strong worded campaign pledge to “amend” NAFTA in favor of American workers by stemming the loss of manufacturing jobs.



Since he has entered office Obama has simply reiterated the SPP’s call to advance without stoking “protectionism”. In a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, during his first official foreign visit, Obama responded to a question regarding the renegotiation of NAFTA by saying “Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signs of protectionism.”



Eyebrows were also raised when Obama temporarily removed economist Austan Goolsbee from his staff when it was revealed that Goolsbee had told Canadian officials that Obama’s campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA were purely campaign rhetoric.



What is this?



http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2008/02/29/nafta_...



Friday, Feb 29, 2008 12:07 EST

Will loose lips sink anti-NAFTA ships?

Canada's CTV says Obama's economic advisor Austan Goolsbee told a Canadian official not to worry about Obama's "rhetoric."

By Andrew Leonard



Talking Points Memo points us to a new report from Canada's CTV in which the news organization fingers Austan Goolsbee, Barack Obama's chief economic advisor, as the man who told Canada not to worry about Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric.



According to CTV, the conversation between Goolsbee and the Canadian consulate general took place in Chicago. CTV also reported that on Thursday night "CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters."



Having been apprised of this information, How the World Works feels it should retract its unsourced suggestion that this whole affair smelled like a political dirty trick. Goolsbee's refusal to affirm or deny that the conversation took place, the Obama campaign's original cautious response that "the story was not accurate" and the likely fact that Goolsbee almost undoubtedly believes that Obama's vigorous criticism of NAFTA is indeed just rhetoric, make the story a good bit more believable than it first appeared. One doubts that this was an authorized communication between the Obama campaign and the Canadian consulate, however.



Apparently, economists just don't know when to keep their mouths shut during a political campaign. One hearkens back to Bush's economic advisor, Greg Mankiw, spouting off about the benefits of outsourcing during the 2004 campaign, for which he was royally spanked.



In the interests of fairness, it should be noted that CTV is now saying that "the Clinton campaign has [also] made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words."



The Clinton campaign "denied the claim."



Conclusion: The Citizens of Canada must make PM Harper accountable for all of the above!



Also Did Harper say Canada should now join the New World Order?

How did CPC propaganda end up in my mailbox?



Verbatim







Office of Joy Smith, M.P.

Kildonan-St. Paul







Bureau de Joy Smith, députée

Kildonan-St. Paul





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 2, 2009



News Release



Opposition To Child Trafficking Bill Horrifies Former Trafficking Victim



Ottawa, ON: Wednesday September 30, 2009, MP Joy Smith’s Bill C-268, which proposes five year minimum sentences for traffickers of children, received significant support from 239 Members of Parliament during the vote at Third Reading. However, 43 MPs of the Bloc Quebecois and 3 MPs from the NDP parties voted against serious penalties for child traffickers.



As Timea Nagy, a former victim of human trafficking, sat in gallery of the House of Commons watching the vote on C-268, she felt horrified that anyone would vote against such legislation.



“I don’t understand how anyone could feel that five years in jail is too much for those who offer children for sale,” said Timea Nagy. “What if it were their child that was trafficked? Would they still have voted the same way?”



“Timea is truly and inspiration and hero to us all! Her determination to help other victims gives us continued hope that one day we will end this modern day slave trade,” said MP Joy Smith. “We must give her and other victims hope. As Members of Parliament, we are obligated to give victims confidence to come forward and escape the clutches of their traffickers.”



Timea also had the opportunity to review some of the comments made by one of the NDP members who voted against Bill C-268. During the final debate on C-268 on September 29, 2009, NDP MP Megan Leslie said,



“We have a situation here in which five people have been convicted. Let us remember that the bill deals only with people who have been convicted, and we have 800 people who are being trafficked. They are not addressed by the bill at all, not one bit. Five versus 800: I wonder why we are even wasting our time talking about this when what we really need is action on child trafficking.”



“I know the terrifying feeling of knowing that your trafficker is out there. Is there any wonder why there are only 5 convictions and these 800 other victims don’t come forward,” said Timea Nagy, who now counsels other victims of human trafficking. “What confidence can we offer them, when there is no guarantee that their trafficker will receive any jail time at all? Why would they dare come forward when the threat of further exploitation and abuse remains?”





Prior to the vote on Bill C-268, an email was distributed to all MPs with a message from Timea.



To the Members of House of Commons.



My name is Timea Eva Nagy. I am a Human Trafficked victim and survivor.

As a person who has experienced this horrific crime first hand, and as a person who is now helping other victims by giving them hope and courage to go to the police and give a statement, facing the possibility that their keepers will walk or get a light sentence is the hardest part of my job.



Looking in a victim’s eye, and telling her that the Police will do everything they can, but it is now up to the law and the court system to make sure that these guys will never hurt her again can be really scary to rely on.



Trafficking drugs and guns get tougher sentences then trafficking a person.



I truly believe that if it was your daughter, sister, you would also feel that something is wrong with that picture. You have a chance today to change that. We as Victims, and the Police officers are relying on your decision today.



Please give us hope and reasons to be brave and strong for giving a statement and testifying. Please reward the Police officers who are doing a really hard work by giving them tougher law’s to work with.



You have the power to do that!



On September 30, 2009, two hundred and thirty-nine Members of Parliament voted to take a stand against child trafficking. Two hundred and thirty-nine Members of Parliament voted to bring dignity to the victims of child trafficking. Two hundred and thirty-nine Members of Parliament voted to fight the fear of victims.



Unfortunately, forty-six Members of Parliament chose to vote against hope for victims.



Timea was by no means the only person shocked by the resistance to C-268. Canadians across Canada were appalled at the opposition to C-268. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, founder of Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association (MMPFA) said, “Voting against this Bill will be detrimental to Quebec and the victims of criminal acts. The Bloc’s position suggests that attacking children is not serious and not subject to severe sentences.”



Other Canadians reflected on the passage of C-268 as fundamental to affirming Canada’s position towards child trafficking.



“This is certainly a great moment where together as Canadians we stand for children, sending a clear message that we will never tolerate their trafficking,” said former Quebec youth judge, Andree Ruffo. “It took the vision and determination of Mrs. Joy Smith, Member of Parliament. She should be thanked and congratulated.”



Both Mr. Boisvenu and Ms. Ruffo spoke with MP Joy Smith at a walk to raise awareness about child trafficking and support C-268 last Sunday in Montreal. The walk drew many people from across Quebec representing a wide range of faiths, ethnic backgrounds, and communities.



“Regardless of where I go in Canada, Canadians are clear that they will not tolerate child trafficking, nor will they tolerate light sentences for the perpetrators.” said Mrs. Smith. “This message continues to be consistent across our country.”



The full list of voting results can be viewed here: http://www.joysmith.ca/index.asp?ID=76&cat_ID=1&sub_ID=468



- 30 -



For more information please contact:



Joel Oosterman

Legislative Assistant

Office of Joy Smith, MP

Phone: (613) 992-7148

Email: smithj8@parl.gc.ca

Website: http://www.joysmith.ca



Benjamin Perrin

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia

Faculty Fellow, Liu Institute for Global Issues

Phone: (778) 928-9327

E-mail: perrin@law.ubc.ca

Website: http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/perrin



Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu

President

Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association (MMPFA)

Phone: 819-620-3554

Email: afpad@bellnet.ca

Website: http://www.afpad.ca/en/index.shtml



Andrée Ruffo

Former Quebec Youth Judge

Phone: 450-244-5049



End Verbatim.



The Question is what does the BQ and the NDP oppose in this bill?

From CBC



We see by-elections in Electoral districts where votes will be held Nov. 9:



Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley (Nova Scotia)

New Westminster-Coquitlam (British Columbia)

Hochelaga (Quebec)

Montmagny-L’Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup (Quebec)



Rumour has the CPC are not confident to win even 1.



So from the last elections:



Colchester Cumberland



CON 3493 Ind (Bill Casey) 27303 NDP 4874 Liberal 3344 ind (Rock Simpson) 550



FRom Wikipedia



Party Candidate

Conservative Scott Armstrong

Liberal Jim Burrows

New Democrat Mark Austin

Green Jason Blanch

Christian Heritage Jim Hnatiuk



Liberal or NDP could take this



Rivière-du-Loup



Liberal 6 835 CHP 147 BQ 20 494 Green 978 NDP 2 428 CON 13 640



BQ hold



FRom Pundit's Guide



BQ Nancy Gagnon CONS Bernard Genereux



N/A at this time



Hochelaga



Comm 184 ML 177 Liberal 9 442 CON 4 201 rhinos 230 Green 1 946 Marijuan 183 BQ 22 720 NDP 6 600



From Pundit's Guide



NDP Jean-Claude Rocheleau



Will the Liberals overtake the BQ here?





New Westminster-Coquitlam



NDP 20 787 Libertarian 314 Liberal 5 615 CON 19 299 Green 3 574 ML 103



From tri-citynews.com :



Coquitlam Coun. Fin Donnelly will represent the NDP in the race, while Port Moody Coun. Diana Dilworth will hold the Conservative banner. Ken Beck Lee, an engineer from New Westminster is running for the Liberals and Rebecca Helps will represent the Greens.



This one could be close for the NDP.

Questionable election call



Did you notice Harper's television election ads being played before an

election date was established? Almost wants me to turn Liberal red.

The Battle for Edmonton Sherwood PArk could go 5 ways:



FRom The Edmonton Journal :



'What happened here is not democracy'

Bitter battle over nomination in Edmonton-Sherwood Park riding leaves conservatives fighting among themselves

Darcy Henton, The Edmonton Journal

Published: Monday, September 15, 2008



EDMONTON - Voters in Edmonton-Sherwood Park will have their pick of two conservatives this election as a result of an acrimonious split in the Tory riding association's board over former Mill Woods candidate Tim Uppal's nomination victory.



The majority of board members quit after Uppal soundly defeated local municipal councillor Jacquie Fenske for the Conservative nomination, and his team took control of the board.



Many of those who left are now backing independent James Ford, who vows to give them a conservative voice in Ottawa.



"We just got blindsided," complains former board member John Stokalko. "We didn't have a chance to pick a person.



"It was all decided before we had a chance to do anything."



Defecting board members claim Uppal's team took the riding by stealth with the aid of party officials after longtime MP Ken Epp announced his retirement.



Some believe the party hierarchy encouraged Uppal to run in Edmonton-Sherwood Park rather than challenge Mike Lake, who beat Uppal for the Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont Tory nomination and was elected MP in 2006.



"Too many things were done to keep us in the dark and immobilized," Stokalko says.



Former board members say Uppal didn't file his nomination papers until the last minute and stacked the nomination meeting in north Edmonton to catch Fenske, who appeared on the verge of being acclaimed, by surprise.



"This is not right," says longstanding Tory Bill Noonan. "The party cannot run roughshod over the people. What happened here is not democracy. It's what happens in a banana republic."



Noonan says he wrote a letter of complaint to senior party officials, but William McBeath, a Conservative regional organizer, says the party believes the nomination was fair and he is not aware of anyone complaining about it.



"We believe we have an outstanding candidate in Tim Uppal ... . I am very disappointed Mr. Ford has taken this course of action."



Uppal suggests the complaints are sour grapes, saying he won the nomination fairly.



"I worked really hard to sell memberships and get (supporters) out," he says.



"Jacquie got 250-some people out and I got more. That's the game in a nomination."



Uppal says he won by more than twice the votes of his rival.



Although he was invited to work in the Tories' Ottawa headquarters during the last election and has had six cabinet ministers visit the riding since winning the nomination in 2006, he denies senior party officials helped him secure the position. He sought the nomination on his own accord after learning Epp was retiring, he says.



"I was already building a house out here before that even started."



The party set the nomination date and he decided to take part after talking to his team and "some Conservatives out here," Uppal says.



"It was a whirlwind for a week," he says. "It was a seven-day campaign to sell memberships. I personally went and knocked on doors."



He suffered a bitter defeat of his own when Lake won the nomination in the Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont riding, Uppal says.



He had run unsuccessfully twice previously against Liberal David Kilgour, so he knows well the disappointment of losing, he says.



Although Uppal was building a house in Sherwood Park when the nomination was held in 2006, he didn't live there, McBeath says.



He moved in the following year, McBeath says.



Noonan believes the party took advantage of a weak local board to put in place its favoured candidate from outside the constituency. "I don't know how many other places they have done this, but I am working like hell for Jim to teach the S.O.B.s a lesson. It's as simple as that. If this is what the Conservative party has become, they should go down into Central America."



He doesn't know if Prime Minister Stephen Harper endorsed the move, but says he and several other board members received a taped phone call from Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day endorsing Uppal before the nomination vote.



Former board member Donna Clarkson says eight of 12 board members quit or left over the issue.



"For these people to come in and tell us how to run our board -- we just had enough of it."



Ford, who assisted Fenske in her nomination bid, says association members weren't given sufficient notice of the nomination meeting. Although most members reside in Sherwood Park and Fort Saskatchewan, the vote was held in north Edmonton, he says.



"The nomination process was flawed," he says. "It wasn't illegal, but it was immoral."



Fenske was devastated, but recognized there was nothing she could do, Ford says.



"I decided I wanted to run and try to make something good of this," Ford says. "I want to do something for my community, but more importantly, I want to make sure that nominations are from the grassroots, bottom up and not from the top down. Dammit, we have to stop doing this. It's our community and it's our selection process."



Ford wants to introduce a bill requiring that people who vote to nominate federal candidates be Canadian citizens.



dhenton@thejournal.canwest.com



Well Darcy a perfect example of a parachute candidate



And a comment from Rick Szostak, Liberal Candidate in Edmonton Sherwood PArk:



Thoughts on the Conservative nomination in Sherwood Park:



I do not wish to insert myself into internal Conservative Party politics. However, since this is an issue for many voters in Edmonton-Sherwood Park, I would make the following points:



Government Ministers and other party officials should not actively take sides in a local nomination contest. If this happened in Edmonton-Sherwood Park, then it is symbolic of how this Conservative Party does not practice what it preaches: it speaks of grassroots democracy but apparently violates this principle when convenient.

If the voters of Edmonton Sherwood Park want to send the Conservative Party a lesson -- about the controversy surrounding alleged interference in the nomination process or broader concerns that the party takes Alberta for granted while pouring billions of dollars of pork barrel spending into ridings they want to win in Central Canada -- they need to vote Liberal. With all due respect to Jim Ford, voting for an independent who plans to join the Conservative caucus is like punishing a child by sending them to their room with a big ice cream cone. They will not get the message.



In any case, Stephen Harper shows little respect for his MPs. He does not listen to them or allow them to speak their minds. Either Conservative candidate will end up as little more than a background prop for the leader's photo opportunities. If the voters want an MP that will speak up for Edmonton, Sherwood Park, and Fort Saskatchewan, they need to vote for a party whose leader values open discourse, both within and across parties. Stephane Dion has made it clear that he wants Albertans in his cabinet. The Liberal Party sees northern Alberta as a place where they can win new seats in their quest for a majority government. Liberal MPs from Alberta will be very influential at the national level.



By the way, if voters are curious, I was unopposed in my bid for the Liberal nomination and have the wholehearted support of the Liberal constituency association and past Liberal candidates in this constituency.

Election writ 6 Sept 2008 most likely going to the polls 14 October 2008. Why?

Because the Prime Minister has no confidence in working with opposition and decides

to backtrack on his word.

He now says "Only in a majority government would this work"



What Prime Minister, Canada has now grown up politically to say that majority governments

will not happen if you get less than 50% of the popular vote.



Face it, the electorate will not be had again and now it is

about time the next government review how representation will work. By community?

By popular vote? By proportional representation, one-stage (list) or two-stage (percentage

determined by electorate and then the political party appoints accordingly after that).



Back to the point, Canadians were guaranteed an election for Oct 2009 by Stephen Harper,

but now this backtrack confirms his desire to work with opposition and could backfire

similar to that of David Peterson losing to Bob Rae.



I can see Ontario turning against Harper as well as Quebec. The Maritimes could also

buck the Tories.



It could end up being PM Dion with a minority Government with 6 to 7 official parties

and Harper's CPC losing out the most.



Still it reminds that Harper did a two-step and should pay the price.



I look forward to your participation this election.

4625 votes cast. Rejected ballots 20 .



Votes counted 4605.



Hence the winner needs 2304+ to win.



Dion 2521 votes wins over Ignatieff 2084 votes!!



Harper to be buried aive in shame and disgrace!!

From the Liberal Party of Canada:



Stephan Dion 1782 votes

Micheal Ignatieff 1660 votes

Bob Rae 1375 votes!!





YAY!!! Death Rae is gone!!!!



Run against any sitting NDP in Toronto Bob!!



YES!!! Dion vs Ignatieff on the last ballot!!



I WILL Be renewing my Liberal membership!!



YESS!!! The Liberals will win the next election!!!!!

Live



Michael Ignatieff 1481 31.6%

Bob Rae 1132 24.1%

Stephan Dion 974 20.8%

Gerard Kennedy 884 18.8%

Ken Dryden 219 4.7%



Kennedy and Dion were making a deal



Dryden is off.



Will Rae go to Ignatieff?

Source Liberal Party of Canada:



Michael Ignatieff 1412 votes

Bob Rae 977 votes

Stephane Dion 856 votes

Gerard Kennedy 854 votes

Ken Dryden 238 votes

Scott Brison 192 votes

Joe Volpe 156 votes

Martha Hall Findlay 130 votes



Both Vople and Hall are off the next ballot.



Volpe moves to Rae.



Hopefully Kennedy and Dion merge together!

Bob Rae will destroy the Federal Liberal Party of Canada.



This is the same Bob Rae who was NDP Premier of Ontario who call the same Liberal Party of Canada arrogant. Talk about a double standard.



Good back to the NDP BObo. You were the NDP MP for Beach - York in the 1980s. You went to lead an NDP Ontario party that proved incapable of economic realities and send the Ontario Economy into the tank!



No wonder Stephen Harper wants you to be Liberal Leader with your baggage.



You came 3rd in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta!



If Bob Rae wins, the Green and the Canadian Progressives will finsih off the Liberals like done dinner.



Anyone but Rae!!



We need an alliance of Kennedy, Dion and Ignatieff to stop Mr. Duplicity!



NO WAY DEATH RAE!!

Preliminary Results

London North Centre Last updated: 23:29 ET



Party Candidate Votes % Votes

Canadian Action Will Arlow 53 0.1 0.1%

Independent Robert Ede 77 0.2 0.2%

Conservative Dianne Haskett 9,309 24.4 24.4%

PC Party Steve Hunter 145 0.4 0.4%

Green Party Elizabeth May 9,864 25.9 25.9%

Liberal Glen Pearson 13,287 34.9 34.9%

N.D.P. Megan Walker 5,388 14.1 14.1%

Total number of valid votes: 38,123

Polls reporting: 253/253 Voter turnout: 38,123 of 89,139 registered electors (42.8%)

The number of registered electors shown in this table does not include electors who registered on election day.



Preliminary Results

Repentigny Last updated: 23:18 ET



Party Candidate Votes % Votes

Canadian Action Mahmood Raza Baig 95 0.3 0.3%

N.D.P. Réjean Bellemare 2,183 7.0 7.0%

Conservative Stéphane Bourgon 5,822 18.7 18.7%

Bloc Québécois Raymond Gravel 20,635 66.3 66.3%

Independent Jocelyne Leduc 390 1.3 1.3%

Independent Régent Millette 78 0.3 0.3%

Liberal Christian Turenne 1,940 6.2 6.2%

Total number of valid votes: 31,143

Polls reporting: 217/217 Voter turnout: 31,143 of 85,264 registered electors (36.5%)

The number of registered electors shown in this table does not include electors who registered on election day.



Source Elections Canada.



CPC is doomed!

From the Toronto Star:







Kenney accused of misleading the Commons

OTTAWA-Jason Kenney, the Conservative government's attack dog, now

finds himself under ethical attack - accused of fabricating the truth

just to lash out at the opposition Liberals.



"It's just breathtaking," Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said

yesterday. The opposition wants Kenney's head. "He deliberately misled

the House of Commons and he should resign."



The controversy is almost an arcane one, revolving around technical

aspects of Canada's access-to-information law and the complex web of

daily, intergovernmental emails among bureaucrats and political aides.



But the ongoing furor is being fuelled by the big principles being

churned up: privacy, the public's right to scrutinize the government

and now, in light of Kenney's attack stance in the Commons this week,

truth and lies in the partisan fray.



It starts with a story this week in Montreal's Gazette, which revealed

minutes of meetings showing government communication officials bandying

about names of reporters who had filed access-to-information requests.

This raised fears about a serious violation of the access law:

identities of requesters are supposed to be shielded from government

scrutiny.



Even worse, copies of these minutes were forwarded to officials in the

Prime Minister's Office, including Sandra Buckler, communication

director for Stephen Harper.



The government's initial defence was to insist that no political people

actually read the reports of these proceedings.



But then Kenney, the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, said he

had a Privy Council Office memo proving that Liberals had indulged in

the same, illegal indiscretion when they were in office. He has now

said this at least a half-dozen times in the House of Commons.



Kenney said the Conservatives were actually raising the standards of

elected office by stopping the practice immediately. The problem,

however, is that the memo says the opposite.



Dale Eisler, assistant secretary to the cabinet and a former

journalist, wrote in the memo: "There was no knowledge of an ATI

(access-to-information) request by any specific reporter. We are never

privy to that information."



The only long-standing practice that Eisler mentions is the actual

circulation of the minutes. "These type of summary reports were

regularly shared with members of the previous government's

communications office."





AS if!! So much for open CONservative government!



> privy to that information."

Once again the Conservatives of Canada are headed for 1993 oblivion:



L. Ian MacDonald of the Montreal Gazette says:





No road to a majority through Quebec for Harper's Conservatives

Latest poll finds Kyoto and Lebanon issues cooling support for Tories

<A TARGET="_top" HREF="http://ad.ca.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v7/3435/3/0/%2a/g%3B34500441%3B0-0%3B0%3B12204871%3B237-250/250%3B16633292/16651187/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://driving.canada.com"><IMG SRC="http://m1.2mdn.net/1000536/creative1.jpg" BORDER=0></A>





L. Ian MacDonald, Montreal Gazette

Published: Tuesday, August 01, 2006



Montreal / That screeching sound you may have heard over the weekend might have been Stephen Harper slamming on the brakes at any thought of a fall election.



An election today would produce another minority Conservative government, according to a new Decima poll that finds public opinion very much aligned as it was in January.



In fact, the Decima numbers mirror the election results, with the Conservatives at 36 per cent, the Liberals at 30 per cent, and the NDP at 17 per cent.



In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois rebounded to 43 per cent, up five points from a May poll, the Conservatives slipped six points to 23 per cent, with the Liberals at 18 per cent, and completely out of the game in the regions, the key Bloc-Bleu battleground of 50 seats.



And in Ontario, the leaderless Liberals have moved out to a 10-point, 43-33 lead over the Tories, with the NDP stuck at 17 per cent.



These numbers, within a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, would produce almost the same results in Quebec as on Jan. 23, when the Bloc won 51 seats with 42 per cent of the vote, the Conservatives won 10 seats with 25 per cent (eight of them clustered in the vote-efficient 418 area code region) and the Liberals won 13 seats with 20 per cent (all in Montreal and the bedroom community of Laval).



There is no road to a majority through Quebec for Harper with numbers like these.



In Ontario, again within the margin of error, the Conservatives wouldn't do as well as in January, when they won 40 seats with 35 per cent of the vote, while the Liberals won 54 seats with 39 per cent of the vote, and the NDP 12 seats with 17 per cent.



It is a rule of thumb of Ontario politics that every percentage point above 30 per cent is worth five seats, and these numbers would return about 65 Liberals and only 30 Conservatives, pushing the Tories back to their heartland in eastern and southern Ontario, and shutting them out again in the Toronto suburbs of area 905, where they made a modest breakthrough of seven seats in January.



So, what's going on, in the middle of summer, for the Tories to be retreating from majority territory of 40 per cent, where they were sitting comfortably through the spring?



Well, a war in the Middle East, during the period Decima was in the field from July 20 to 23. That would account for some of the Conservative slippage in Quebec, given the importance of the Lebanese community here and the opposition in Quebec to Harper's strong support of Israel.



"The dominant story and the position Canada has taken on it is also seen as being aligned with George W. Bush, especially in Quebec," says Decima president Bruce Anderson.



And then there's Kyoto, or not. While Kyoto is only a process of unachievable targets, it has huge brand equity in Quebec. Until the Conservatives come forward with their plan on climate change in the fall, there is a significant environmental vacuum.



"The environment could be the next important political issue, it could be very important at the next election," Anderson says.



No road to a majority through Quebec for Harper's Conservatives

Latest poll finds Kyoto and Lebanon issues cooling support for Tories

<A TARGET="_top" HREF="http://ad.ca.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v7/3435/3/0/%2a/b%3B38023998%3B0-0%3B0%3B12204871%3B237-250/250%3B17130229/17148124/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://ad.ca.doubleclick.net/clk;38229125;13524494;h?http://www.gmcanada.com/static/english/financing/offers/cwc_2006.html?adv=17797"><IMG SRC="http://m1.2mdn.net/709756/CWC_300_250.gif" BORDER=0></A>





Article Tools











Printer friendly



E-mail





Font:















L. Ian MacDonald, Montreal Gazette

Published: Tuesday, August 01, 2006



Any time the economy is strong as it is now, and jobs are not an issue, the environment always moves to the top tier of voter concerns. This was the case in 1988, when Brian Mulroney won the middle-class vote in the pre-writ period by seizing ownership of the environment on everything from acid rain to beluga whales in the St. Lawrence River.



Anderson sees some similarities with 1988 but also some differences, in that the baby boomers who were yuppies then are now approaching retirement and "are starting to think about leaving a legacy on the environment, and certainly climate change is a big part of that, especially since the hurricane disasters of last summer."



Anderson's numbers in Quebec clearly reflect the short-term impact of the war in the Middle East, and Harper's unequivocal support of the Israelis. But approve of it or not, Harper has also taken a strong leadership position, and the next election is going to be largely about leadership and the competence of his young government. In the end, the Middle East is not likely to be on the ballot.



Yet these numbers also offer a cautionary warning to Harper, not to arrange for the defeat of the government over the softwood lumber agreement with the United States.



Minority parliaments are no place to play chicken. Just ask Joe Clark.



L. Ian MacDonald is a Montreal writer and broadcaster who also writes a column for the Montreal Gazette



Well Ian I trust the SES Reseach and I have the feeling Harper will not care for the numbers coming out of there.



Further Tory E-mail offensive



Tory e-mail 'offensive'





Re: "Using Mideast in Tory pitch for donations called 'crass'," The Journal, July 29.



You have to subscribe to the Edmonton Journal to read but in Summary it shows the CPC has poor judgment.



Finally:



Harper must condemn bombing .



Again You have to subscribe to the Edmonton Journal to read but in Summary the writer is mad about innocents death in Lebanon.



Usually Canada was to broker peace and be friend will all. Harper wants to mrach to George Bush's tune and not that of Canada.



Harper to be pried out!