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?

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.