Saturday, September 29, 2007

Dalton Broken Promises to Students






Dalton Broken Promises to Students:

Is there a promise this man has kept??????
-Darryl



******


From: Canadian Federation of Students



******


Students slam McGuinty for breaking tuition freeze promise

Last Updated: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 | 5:02 PM ET


University students in Ottawa have joined the chorus of critics decrying Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty's broken 2003 election promises.

At a rally outside McGuinty's campaign headquarters in Ottawa Tuesday, dozens of students from Carleton University and the University of Ottawa chanted: "We won't forget!" — a reminder to students that before McGuinty was elected premier four years ago, he promised to freeze tuition fees.

Students rallied outside Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty's Ottawa campaign office, criticizing him for breaking his 2003 promise to keep tuition frozen.Students rallied outside Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty's Ottawa campaign office, criticizing him for breaking his 2003 promise to keep tuition frozen.
(CBC)

McGuinty kept the freeze in place for two years.

"Dalton McGuinty is hoping that students won't remember that he shattered the tuition fee freeze, and has allowed tuition to increase by 24 to 36 per cent," shouted Isaac Cockburn, vice-president for student issues at the Carleton University Students' Association. As he spoke, a crowd of students waved red and yellow signs that read "Reduce tuition fees" outside an office building window lined a with red and white "Dalton McGuinty campaign signs."

Cockburn also criticized McGuinty for allowing colleges and universities to charge illegal fees in addition to tuition. Those fees are the subject of a class action lawsuit launched by two Ontario students in June.

McGuinty has also been attacked for breaking other election promises. His two main political opponents, Conservative Leader John Tory and NDP Leader Howard Hampton, have criticized him for imposing a $2.6-billion health premium despite a promise not to raise taxes.
Continue Article

As well, parents of autistic children say that McGuinty promised them in 2003 that he would extend funding to treat autistic children over six. Since July 2005, Ontario has funded autism treatment for some children over six. However, at the same time, the Ontario government has spent millions defending itself from parents who sued to gain access to government-funded treatment for older children.
McGuinty's law degree cost only $6,000: student leader

Seamus Wolfe, vice-president of university affairs for the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, told the demonstrators that McGuinty's entire law degree at their university cost him only $6,000 in today's dollars.

"I want to ask you, Mr. McGuinty, what was it like to start your professional life debt-free?" Wolfe demanded in front of demonstrators who carried large black balls similar to those once shackled to prisoners, marked with the words "student debt."

Wolfe questioned whether McGuinty would have accomplished what he has in his professional life had he graduated with a debt worth tens of thousands of dollars.

According to Statistics Canada, a student who graduated in 2000 had an average debt of $19,500, and student groups say debt has been climbing with tuition fees since then.

Cockburn said that before the students left McGuinty's office, they read out and delivered a pledge for the Liberal leader to sign.

The pledge would commit McGuinty to reducing tuition fees, forcing colleges and universities to stop charging illegal ancillary fees and implementing a comprehensive needs-based grant system.

Staff at the campaign office promised the students that they would pass the pledge along to McGuinty, Cockburn said.

The NDP have promised to freeze college and university tuition fees at 2003 levels for four years and the Green Party has promised to cap annual tuition fees at $3,000 for universities and $700 for colleges. However, the Liberals and Conservatives have not yet made any tuition-related commitments leading up to the Oct. 10 election.

Great election website - http://www.daltonmcguinty.ca/


Great election website

Check this out...

http://www.daltonmcguinty.ca/

Canadian Dollar Closes Above U.S. Greenback


Canadian Dollar Closes Above U.S. Greenback

Something we haven't seen in a long time, the Canadian dollar is now worth more than the American dollar!!! While this is great news if you are going to the US this winter or want to do some cross border shopping; it is terrible news for our manufacturing sector and border communities such as Windsor and Niagara Falls. It will be interesting to see where this goes. The US is falling also against the Euro as well. In January of 2002, the Canadian dollar was worth 61.79 cents against the US dollar. This is the first time the Canadian dollar has been ahead of the US since 1976. Expect this to become a huge issue over the next year.

-Darryl

************

Dollar closes above U.S. greenback

Globe and Mail Update

The Canadian dollar has closed above parity with U.S. dollar for first time since November, 1976, closing up two-thirds of a cent at $1.0052 (U.S.).

The Canadian dollar vaulted back above parity early Friday and held on to its gains throughout the afternoon as commodity prices rallied and the U.S. currency continued to struggle.

The Canadian currency reached parity with its U.S. counterpart for the first time in 31 years on Sept. 20. Since then, it has risen above par during intraday trading a number of times but has failed to close above that level.

“Among the G-10 nation currencies, the Canadian dollar is used more than any other as a proxy for oil,” Rebecca Paterson, global currency strategist at J.P. Morgan in New York, said in an interview. “So when oil prices rise, anyone that wants to bet on oil and does not want to play the commodity market turns to the Canadian dollar.”

The price of oil surged above $83 a barrel on Friday morning, closing in on its record high of $83.90, before falling back a touch in afternoon action.

Other commodity markets were also flirting with record territory Friday. Gold futures rose to a 28-year high topped $750 an ounce, while other precious metals like copper also rallied. Soaring oil and gas prices have bolstered Canada's economy and currency in recent years, leading the loonie to be dubbed the petro-currency.

The loonie's Friday gains came despite a report that showed the Canadian economy expanded just 0.2 per cent in July, a notch shy of the 0.4 per cent consensus forecast.

The Canadian loonie has surged 6.4 per cent in the third quarter of this year and more than 5 per cent this month, according to Bank of Montreal economist Douglas Porter. “The rise in the third quarter leaves it as only the third-strongest among the majors, with Norway's krone and the Japanese yen both rising a bit more,” he said.

In January, 2002, the loonie hit a record low of 61.79 cents. During the last five years, it has risen steadily, fuelled by strong commodity prices, a robust domestic economy and a slew of Canadian corporate acquisitions by foreign firms.

The beleaguered U.S. currency, meanwhile, slumped to a record low for the seventh straight day Friday against the euro after a U.S. government report showed core consumer prices had their smallest gain since February, 2004. The selling of the greenback has continued unabated in recent days amid speculation that the Federal Reserve will need to cut interest rates again to prop up the ailing U.S. economy and avert a meltdown.

Ms. Paterson, attributed the greenback's weakness to rates and risk appetite.

“The main thing today was that we had signs of benign U.S. inflation data and that made the market more comfortable that the Fed can afford to cut rates further and the prospect for lower yields is weighing on the dollar,” she said. “Broad investors sentiment is encouraging buying of higher-yield currencies ... and that risk appetite tends to weigh on the U.S. dollar.”

Canadians want Hillary for President





Germans, French, Canadians Want Hillary as U.S. President

August 29, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in two European nations hold positive views on a prospective United States presidential nominee, according to a five-country poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 45.5 per cent of respondents in Germany, and 43.7 per cent of respondents in France, would like to see Hillary Rodham Clinton as the next American head of state.

Support for Rodham Clinton—currently serving her second term as New York’s junior U.S. senator—stands at 38.9 per cent in Canada, 35.2 per cent in Italy, and 29.8 per cent in Britain.

Eight U.S. presidential hopefuls—four Democrats and four Republicans—were included as options. In Italy, 17.5 per cent of respondents would like Republican former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani to win the 2008 U.S. presidential election. In Canada, 13.4 per cent of respondents voice support for Democratic Illinois senator Barack Obama.

Two candidates who have run for president in the past—Democratic former North Carolina senator John Edwards and Republican Arizona senator John McCain—cannot reach the three per cent mark in any of the five countries. Support is also low for two GOP contenders—actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney—as well as Democratic New Mexico governor Bill Richardson.

Canada provided the lowest number of undecided respondents at 28.3 per cent, while almost half of Britons did not pick any of the eight candidates.

Earlier this month, Giuliani discussed his foreign policy views in an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine. The GOP politician said the war on terrorism represents "the dawn of a new era in global affairs", and vowed to focus on building "sound legal, institutional, and cultural foundations" in the Middle East, adding, "History demonstrates that democracy usually follows good governance, not the reverse."

On Aug. 22, Rodham Clinton called for the ouster of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, saying, "The Iraqi government’s failures have reinforced the widely held view that the Maliki government is non-functional and cannot produce a political settlement, because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders."

Polling Data

As you may know, the United States will elect a new president in November 2008. Which of these candidates would you like to see elected as President of the United States? (Candidates listed alphabetically)


BRI

FRA

ITA

GER

CAN

John Edwards

1.5%

1.8%

2.6%

2.5%

2.5%

Rudy Giuliani

9.5%

2.7%

17.5%

2.1%

9.6%

John McCain

1.4%

1.1%

1.3%

1.2%

2.7%

Barack Obama

7.1%

4.7%

11.2%

8.6%

13.4%

Bill Richardson

0.6%

0.5%

0.7%

0.6%

0.4%

Hillary Rodham Clinton

29.8%

43.7%

35.2%

45.5%

38.9%

Mitt Romney

0.4%

0.1%

0.3%

0.2%

1.2%

Fred Thompson

0.4%

0.7%

0.6%

0.4%

2.8%

Not sure

49.3%

44.7%

30.6%

38.9%

28.3%

Source: Angus Reid Strategies
Methodology: Online interviews with 5,075 adults in Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Italy, conducted from Jul. 26 to Aug. 11, 2007. Margin of error for each country is 3.1 per cent.

Friday, September 28, 2007

Tory to build a stronger economy

Tory to build a stronger economy


While visiting the trade floor of a Toronto brokerage firm, John Tory said he would encourage economic prosperity in all levels of society and would would eliminate the so-called health tax for people earning less than $30,000 a year starting next January.

Why I Voted for Mixed Member Proportional






Why I Voted for Mixed Member Proportional

If you decide to vote on October 10 (of if you vote in the advance polls) you will be presented with two ballots. The first ballot will be to vote for the candidate in your riding, the second will be a referendum on changing the electoral system. The question will be as follows:

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?

The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)/

The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)

There are several reasons I voted this way. Some have asked "if the system has been working since the 1700's, why change it now?". The answer is that our current system is not working and here is why.

Problems with First past the post:

1, Results in the legislature do not reflect the results of voting. Below are tables from the last four provincial elections. Notice how the seat totals are not reflective to the percentage of votes cast. Not once did a majority government (granted absolute power in the legislature for a period of four years) actually exceed 50% of the vote.

*2006 Federal Election:

*2003 General Election - Dalton McGuinty
(majority government is 52 seats)


Liberal Party 72 seats won with 46.5% of the vote
PC Party 24 seats won with 34.7% of the vote
NDP Party 7 seats with 14.7% of the vote
Green Party 0 seats with 2.8% of the vote (and fall below 3% for MMP seat allocation despite 126,651 votes for them)


*1999 Provincial Election - Mike Harris
(majority government is 52 seats)

PC Party 59 seats with 45.1% of vote
Liberal Party 35 seats with 39.9% of vote
NDP Party 9 seats with 12.6% of vote
Green Party 0 seats with 0.7% of vote (again no seats awarded under MMP)

*1995 Provincial Election - Mike Harris
(majority government is 52 seats)

PC Party 82 seats with 44.8% of vote
Liberal Party 30 seats with 31.1% of vote
NDP Party 17 seats with 20.6% of vote
Green Party 0 seats with 0.4% of vote (again no seats awarded under MMP)

*1990 Provincial Election - Bob Rae
(majority government is 52 seats)

NDP Party 74 seats with 37.6% of vote
Liberal Party 36 seats with 32.4% of vote
PC Party 20 seats with 23.5% of vote
Green Party 0 seats with 0.7% of vote (again no seats awarded under MMP)

2, Under the current system there is more accountability to the party leadership than there is the people. In a majority situation the leader has full control of every MP or MPP and as a result they are forced to act like trained seals or pylons. If they want to be rewarded by getting into cabinet (more name recognition, leadership potential, higher salary, increased private sector value, additional power and perks such as extra funding to their ridings) they must toe the line through party discipline. When they put the interests of their riding ahead of the party, they are marginalized to the back benches and in cases such as with Carolyn Parrish, Garth Turner, Bill Casey, Joe Comuzzi, and Joe Nunziata they can be expelled from caucus all together. This encourages floor crossing when re-election looks difficult in the MPPs riding or when a cabinet post or appointment is offered from the other side.

3, Grass roots members, opposition parties, back bench MP/MPPs, and voters have virtually no impact on government legislation. What the leader wants, party members are expected to sell with no debate or input. Example: faith based schools

4, Minimal sense of cooperation. Because there is an us against them attitude, every idea that is a blue idea is treated as a good one while every idea that is a red/orange/green is automatically dismissed as bad. Under current minority conditions federally, legislation is supported or opposed based on how it affects party chances in the next election. Positioning is more important than resolving. In a majority government, opposition is simply token in nature accept for the odd private members bill that passes.

5, In some ridings, it is a total waste of time for some people to vote. It also encourages strategic voting . For example, many NDP voters shifted to the Liberals in order to defeat the Conservatives during Mike Harris' re-election campaign. Many people will not vote Green or NDP because they know full well they cannot win a seat and are therefore "wasting their vote". If you live in rural Alberta and vote Liberal, the outcome is already predetermined. You might as well save the gas and not bother voting.

6, Everyone suggests that regional or extreme parties can get into the legislature under MMP. The truth is the opposite is the case. In MMP a party must receive at least 3% of the vote in order to qualify for an appointed seat. In the last four elections, the Ontario Green Party has not been able to get that. In the federal election, a regional party such as the Bloc can play a major role in the system. Look at the results from 2006

2006 Federal Election (Stephen Harper)
(Seats required for a majority 155)

CON124036.27%
LIB103030.23%
BQ51010.48%
NDP29017.48%
IND10.52%
OTH005.02%

Under this system the BQ got more seats than the NDP despite earning more national votes. The Green Party had just under half as many voters as the BQ (664,068) but failed to get a seat. Today Greens are polling between 6-14% in various polls yet they will still likely not win a seat in the upcoming federal election and as a result will again be shut out of the debates next time. That is an injustice and simply not democracy as I understand it. Do you want a Toronto Party, Islamic Party, Marijuana Party, Northern Ontario Party???? Vote for the status quo and pick a riding where you have strongest chance. Under MMP, an extremist party needs to find at least 200,000 votes to qualify for a seat. Under this system you just have to win one seat even if you do not win candidates anywhere else.

7, There are ways to improve the current system but why would any leader follow through on any promise to give up the absolute power they have. If John Tory is serious about allowing free votes and more power to individuals, I would suggest he start by allowing a free vote on faith based education. Democratic reform has been promised by every party and no one delivers. Even former Reform member Stephen Harper runs a tight ship with his MPs and cabinet. There is no incentive to change and as a result there will be no change under this system. I support recall legislation but all the party leaders said they would oppose it during the debates. Voting for the status quo is exactly that...voting for the status quo.

What I like about MMP:

1, You get two votes. This allows you to think twice. Who is the local representative? Will they be a strong advocate for my riding in the legislature? Does she/he listen and vote according to the will of the citizens he represents or the party? Is she/he accessible? What has he/she done for the community? MPPs would be accountable to their individual ridings and would be strictly accountable to them. It could also allow true voting intentions to come through and as a result increase participation. For example I like Ken Dryden because of his NHL career but I don't think Dion is a leader. Under MMP I could vote Dryden and then Conservative (although I realize Dryden is a federal MP). In Newmarket-Aurora provincially a person could vote for Frank Klees because of his record in York Region and because he is a stronger representative than his Liberal opponent for the riding; but at the same time they could also vote Liberal because they don't want to fund faith based schools. To me this means more choice and also more accountability to my local MPP. Better local representation will come out of this.

2, The list allows for more democracy not less. Party leaders (elected by party members) would occupy spot 1 on the public list of each party. Other members could either be elected by region or cabinet/shadow cabinet position by party members at the various leadership or policy conventions. They could also be appointed to fill regional, gender, disability, native, minority, age gaps within the parties if necessary. Because the list is made public in advance, I would have a hard time voting for a party who's list wasn't selected transparently and was made up of party hacks, back room strategists and cronies. The list is an opportunity for increased grass roots party democracy. Although they do not represent a riding; they represent the will of all the voters who supported a party other than the candidate that won the first past the post race. They are also accountable to the leader and the party members who elected them to the list. In other countries where this system has been implemented, list members have been elected similar to the party leader and local candidates.

3, No majority governments. This would take the partisanship and confrontational attitude out of politics. A majority would be impossible unless over 50% of votes supported the party in power. As a result, the government would have to either form a coalition with another party resulting in a true majority government or they would have to bargain for support on each piece of legislation. Either way it would force the government of the day to reach out to other parties or individual MPPs who are accountable to the wishes of voters in their ridings. The goal would be compromise instead of confrontation. Parties would have to move towards mainstream support as oppose to pandering to swing ridings. There would not be frequent elections because everyone would know the results would be another coalition government.

4, There is criticism that MMP would lead to multiple fringe parties in Ontario getting seats and later being forced to make concessions with these smaller groups in order to govern like we have seen in Israel. The truth is 3% would bring in one seat and the larger parties would be free to appoint many more MPPs due to their larger share of the vote. At 200,000 votes needed to earn a seat from the list, fringe parties will not find it easy to make it into Queens Park. Communists in past elections got in the neighborhood of 0.1% of the vote. Greens got 2.8% of the total vote in the 2003 provincial election. In the 2001 BC election the Marijuana Party got 3.22% of the popular vote. If the Greens get their 3%, I say give those voters a voice in the legislature.

5, MPP's would be more independent in their voting. The leader's pressure would be less than that faced in a two ballot system back in their riding. You would see a more American style politician where Republicans or Democrats are free to vote against their party from time to time and are actually actively recruited to overturn vetoes etc. MPPs would be accountable for their voting records during election campaigns. Right now we assume they stand with the leader and 100% behind the platform (that no one reads anyway). The power in the leader's office would be reduced drastically. There would be no purpose to appeasing extremist factions within the party support base.

6, The system is more fair to independents. Because you can vote for the party with ballot 2, someone high profile in the community (Curtis Joesph?) or someone running on an important local non-partisan local issue could run and win. Because it is a minority government, independent members could play a role in the outcome of various votes.


7, People who benefit from the existing system and party insiders oppose MMP. That for me is a good reason to support it.

There is a lot still unknown with Mixed Member Proportional because we have to see how it works in practice. I believe this system addresses most of the problems with our current system. MPPs would be more accountable and free to cast their votes independently. Seats would be allocated closer to the percentage of the vote they receive. Less strategic voting and the opportunity to make your vote count. Voting Green would bring about a result in the legislature if 3% of the population supports them. I think people should be voting for something positive not the "lesser of two evils". I want to see the spirit of compromise among elected officials so that things can get done. The grass roots members would get more say because of the list not less by elected the people who appear on the list. Italy and Israel are often thrown around as examples of proportional representation is not working while Germany and New Zealand are examples of where it works well. I know what I am getting with the status quo and I am willing to take a bit of a risk in order to see some meaningful change and reform to our outdated system. MMP is not perfect, but it is better than what we currently have. I don't think it is the magic bullet to address low voter turnout; but it may over time inspire more people to get involved or at least feel their vote means something.

For those of us who supported the Reform Party back in the day, this should really be a dream come true for us.

If you want power returned to the people...vote MMP on October 10!

Thanks for reading...

Darryl

Videos: Ontario MMP Referendum:

Videos: Ontario MMP Referendum:

Overview:




Citizens Assembly explains who they are and what they recommended for Referendum:



Former Green Party Leader Jim Harris:







Tory signals he'll vote no in referendum





Tory signals he'll vote no in referendum

MMP 'Less Accountable'

Mary Vallis, National Post

Published: Saturday, September 15, 2007

Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory hinted strongly yesterday that he will vote against an electoral reform proposal that will be put to voters in a referendum next month.

In a candid interview with the National Post's editorial board, Mr. Tory said he is wary of the mixed-member proportional system because some MPPs would be "appointed by party bosses and accountable to no constituents."

"I'm very skeptical about a system that ... adds more politicians to begin with," Mr. Tory said. "I haven't met a single voter yet who has told me they're looking to add more politicians to the Ontario legislature, or any other place."

Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory: "I'm very skeptical about a system that ... adds more politicians to begin with."View Larger Image View Larger Image

Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory: "I'm very skeptical about a system that ... adds more politicians to begin with."

Peter J. Thompson, National Post
Email to a friendAfter saying he has taken no official stand on the referendum, Mr. Tory spent several minutes criticizing the proposed new system, which would raise the number of seats at Queen's Park to 129 from 107. It would also reduce the number of ridings to 90; the parties would create lists of candidates from which an additional 39 MPPs would be selected.

"I certainly haven't run into anybody who thinks it would be better to have MPPs, or any other kinds of politicians, who are appointed by party bosses and accountable to no constituents," Mr. Tory said.

"The notion to me that you'd have a whole bunch of people that would be down there now who will be accountable only to party bosses who put their names on the list, to me seems to be making the place less democratic, not more, and less accountable."

The system was developed by an independent citizens' assembly of 103 voters from across the province at Premier Dalton McGuinty's request. The assembly did not suggest how political parties should draw up their lists of candidates.

Mr. Tory said he has not considered how the Progressive Conservatives would develop their list if Ontarians vote in favour of the MMP system in an Oct. 10 referendum. MMP will be used in the 2011 election if it receives 60% of all valid votes cast and a majority of support in at least 60% of Ontario's electoral districts.

Proponents of MMP challenged Mr. Tory to provide leadership on the issue.

"He's the party leader. He's the party boss. Is that how he's going to do it?" asked Steve Withers, a spokesman for Vote for MMP, a grassroots group encouraging voters to cast ballots in favour of change.

"Wouldn't he, as the leader, provide clear direction on how to democratically choose candidates for the party? My goodness me, why not?"

Mr. Withers referred to remarks made by Hugh Segal, a Conservative Senator who spoke in favour of MMP earlier in the week. In a speech to the Economic Club of Toronto, Mr. Segal suggested political parties could elect list candidates at open party meetings, rather than behind closed doors at party headquarters.

Supporters of MMP argue the list system could make Ontario's legislature more diverse if parties include more women and ethnic minorities as list candidates. The number of female candidates in New Zealand, for example, has jumped to one-third from one-fifth since voters there approved MMP in a 1993 referendum.

Mr. Tory said if elected he would favour parliamentary reform instead. One of his top five priorities would be to introduce changes to give MPPs a more meaningful role.

"The reason I'm skeptical is because I think Mr. McGuinty, for reasons as usual of trying to get the optics right, barked up the wrong tree [and] put this whole exercise in motion," Mr. Tory said.

"He was the initiator of this. He himself doesn't even have a position on this."

mvallis@nationalpost.com

Frank Klees Position on Referendum: "Big Decision? Big Mistake!"



"Frankly Speaking"

A regular column by Frank Klees

Big Decision? Big Mistake!

September 26, 2007

On October 10th you will be asked to cast a vote in a referendum which few voters know anything about. How this can happen is a question I'm being asked daily. My response is that this is typical of Dalton McGuinty's approach to governing. In fact, I don't hesitate to tell people that the way in which this issue has been handled is an insult to every Ontarian, and that it undermines the very foundation of democracy which presumes an informed and engaged electorate. Not only have people been left uninformed of what is at stake, Mr. McGuinty and his candidate for Newmarket-Aurora are refusing to express their own views on this issue.

This is an abdication of leadership responsibility.

I believe you have a right to know where I as a candidate stand on this issue and why.

I will be voting to keep the existing First-Past-the-Post electoral system. My reasons are as follows:

First, the process leading up to this referendum is badly flawed. The socalled Citizens' Assembly that was appointed by the McGuinty government to consult with the public did not consult broadly enough, nor was it objective in its approach.

Second, the very fact that so few voters know anything about the referendum, let alone the substance of the question, undermines the credibility of the vote itself. This vote should not even be taking place, given the lack of awareness and information available.

Third, I strongly object to the concept proposed under the MMP system proposed by the Citizens' Assembly under which 39 people would be appointed to the legislature by their Parties rather than be directly elected. These so-called "List Members" will have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as an elected MPP, but will be accountable only to their Party bosses. This is not democracy as I understand it.

Fourth, this system under which the "List Members" get appointed according to the percentage of popular vote, will open the door to multiple parties having one or two seats and will result in perpetual minority governments. The instability brought on by this structure is evident in countries like Italy where a similar system exists.

Finally, the real issue is not how MPP's get elected to the legislature, it is how they conduct themselves when they get there. What we need is to reform how the legislature works. We need to empower MPP's to truly represent their constituents rather than to simply puppet Party lines. Members must be given the freedom to vote according to their conscience, and to carry out their responsibilities with dignity and respect.

When you vote, you will be given two ballots. One to elect your MPP and the other is the referendum ballot. On the referendum ballot, I will be making my mark beside the option that reads:

"The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)". X

As always, I welcome your comments and views on this or any other issues of importance to you. Please visit my website at www.frankklees.com or call me personally at 416 509 8999.

Frank

www.frankklees.com
PC Candidate for Newmarket-Aurora
Authorized by the CFO for the Frank Klees Campaign

The case against first past the post - Coyne


The case against first past the post

I was speaking with a man today who asked why it is the BQ can decide they are bringing down the federal government when they only represent Quebec. The reason is because they won 51 seats in Quebec because 42.1% of voters in Quebec (10.48% of the overall Canadaian vote for a total of 1,553,201 votes) while the NDP won 29 seats despite the fact 17.4% of Canadians voted for them. A small regional party was able to solidify their support within a single province. The NDP bled their vote across the entire nation with mostly third place finishes. This is the fundamental reason our system needs reforming. Below Andrew Coyne does a great job of arguing that the first past the post system is not a system where every vote counts.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl



***************

The case against first past the post

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/09/case-against-first-past-post.php

Democracy, as everyone knows, is a system of majority rule. It is a system marked by free and fair elections between rival political parties, their success or failure depending on the number of votes they can attract. It is a system in which every adult citizen has an equal say in choosing who should represent them.

By every one of these definitions, Canada, under the electoral system in use today, is not a democracy....

By every one of these definitions, Canada, under the electoral system in use today, is not a democracy. We are not governed by majorities, competition between parties is not free and fair, nor do their relative fortunes depend on their popularity with the voters. Most striking of all, we do not give every citizen equal say at election time. Everyone may get one vote, that is true. But some votes count more than others. Some -- most, in fact -- do not count at all.

That is the record of plurality or "first-past-the-post" voting, the system Ontario voters are to be asked to replace in next month’s referendum. Its supporters appeal to a sentiment of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But it is broke, and this is the opportunity to fix it.

Consider some of the results of recent elections. In Ontario, an NDP government was elected in 2000 with 37% of the vote. In British Columbia, the NDP won a majority of the seats in the 1996 election though it received less than 40% of the vote -- not merely fewer than a majority, but fewer than its nearest rivals, the Liberals.

These are hardly unusual. In 26 federal elections since 1921, there have been 16 majority governments elected, but only two that actually commanded a majority of the vote. The rest were minorities posing as majorities, wielding undivided power though as many as five voters in eight voted against them. Supporters of the status quo cite its tendency to produce stable majority governments. But these aren’t majority governments. They’re legalized coup d’etats.

False majorities are but one of the distortions to which the present system gives rise. It is not unknown in this country for one party to take all or nearly all of the seats in the house, with 60% or less of the popular vote -- as happened in B.C. in 2001, and New Brunswick in 1987. The 40% of the public or more who voted for other parties, with other philosophies, were effectively disenfranchised: entitled to vote, but not to representation, which alone gives votes meaning.

Small, startup parties, like the Greens, know what it’s like to be shut out. In the last federal election, the Greens obtained more than 660,000 votes, nearly 5% of the popular vote -- yet they got zero seats. Nor is that injustice restricted to the smaller parties. The 27% of Albertans who voted Liberal or NDP in 2006, but got no seats; the 38% of Ontarians who voted Conservative or Alliance in 2004, but got two seats; the majorities of Quebecers who voted for federalist parties in every election since 1993, only to see the Bloc Quebecois take a majority of the seats -- how much different would our history have been had our electoral system not presented, time and time again, such a false picture of the country?

These anomalies and distortions are reflections of what goes on at the riding level: The winner is not the candidate who receives a majority of the votes cast, but simply the one who comes in first place. With four candidates, it can be done with as little as 25% plus one of the vote. The other 75% of the voters are rewarded for doing their civic duty with … bupkus. All in all, between one-half and two-thirds of all the votes cast in a given election are, in this sense, wasted.

The practice of giving representation only to the winning party is what biases the system against smaller parties, or against larger parties that are in a minority in a given region: a party’s success depends not on now many votes it has overall, but how well it can bunch them geographically. Hence the Conservatives, in 1993, won 16% of the vote nationwide, and were rewarded with two seats, while the Reform party, with 18.7% of the vote, won 52 -- two seats fewer than the Bloc was able to win, with just 13.5% of the vote.

The result is, in democratic terms, chaos. Nobody knows what impact their vote will have, or how it will translate into seats. Indeed, they are often told they cannot even vote for the party of their choice, for fear of “splitting” the vote, but rather must vote for some other party, to stop yet a third from getting in. All we know with certainty is that some votes count for less than others -- a lot less. When 2.6 million federal NDP votes equal 19 seats, as in 2006, but 1.6 million Bloc votes equal 51 seats, it means that each Bloc vote was worth more than four NDP votes.

Phoney majorities, barriers to competition, discrimination between voters -- that’s the case against the current system. I’ll deal with the alternative proposed for Ontario, mixed-member proportional, in another column.

MP and MPP Salary Scale



MP salary hike raises ire ahead of PSAC strike

Updated Mon. Sep. 27 2004 8:29 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Members of Parliament are about to vote on whether to help themselves to a big pay raise. But with a massive public service strike looming, the timing couldn't be worse.

NDP MP Pat Martin told CTV News he plans to reject the mandatory 10 per cent raise. And he hopes his fellow Parliamentarians will do the same.

"You might as well poke the taxpayer in the eye with a stick if you're talking about this kind of heavy executive compensation for MPs, when everybody else has been asked to tighten their belt," he said.

For Martin and his colleagues, rejecting the hike means turning down a sizable chunk of change. MPs are set to earn about $155,000 this year, with cost of living increases.

The MP pay raise couldn't come at a more vexing time. Members of the government's largest union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, are bracing for a massive public service strike that could be in full swing within weeks.

In his latest offer to PSAC, Treasury Board President Reg Alcock proposed an increase of approximately two per cent this year.

That stands in stark contrast to his own pay scale, under which he will be taking more than $242,000 by 2007. That amounts to a 57 per cent raise since 2000.

Under the scheme, the prime minister's salary was initially raised from $184,000 to $263,000, bringing his paycheque in line with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

By 2007, he's expected to take home $327,000 a year.

"This is the result of legislation from three years ago, when Jean Chretien was prime minister," explains The Globe and Mail's Jane Taber.

"He gave federal politicians a 20 per cent raise to tie their salaries to what federal judges receive. At the time, you could argue that MPs were underpaid.

"The argument is that we need to raise the salaries of judicial officials in order to be able to attract competent officials from the private sector. So you can sort of buy that argument. But for MPs to receive a 20 per cent increase four years ago and then another 10 per cent on top of that is a bit rich."

According to PSAC's John Gordon, the disparity is going to make negotiations difficult.

"It's going to strengthen their resolve, to see that their employer -- the people who are sitting across from them at the negotiating table -- taking this kind of increase and offering them what amounts to peanuts."

The union has been on rotating strikes for close to a month to press for higher wages. They have been without a contract since Oct. 31, 2003.

CTV's Paula Newton says the Liberals' minority status means their position on the issue is less than rock solid.

"Back in 2000, with a majority in Parliament, it took less than 20 minutes for MPs to vote themselves a 20 per cent pay increase.

"This time, Opposition parties and voters have more leverage."

And that could mean the government will have to bow to the outrage of citizens like Ottawa waitress Victoria Swinimer. "Ten per cent ... is a little bit outrageous if you ask me," she said, when told of the MPs' raise.

Already, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan has signalled that the government may be backtracking on the idea of linking MPs' salaries to the pay scale for federal judges.

"I think, in fact, it would be more than reasonable to review that linkage and have a parliamentary discussion around whether that linkage is indeed appropriate."

The raises are recommended by an independent commission. MPs haven't had to vote on their salaries since 2001, when they passed then-prime minister Jean Chretien's remuneration legislation by a 211-52 vote.

New Furor Over MPP Salaries After Ontario Politicians Get Another Hike

Wednesday April 18, 2007

CityNews.ca Staff

Remember that big ruckus last fall when MPPs voted themselves a huge $22,000 raise?

It turns out there was a hidden clause in that little pay boost that most of us knew nothing about.

And it could reignite the anger that many voters felt about the hike as we lurch toward a provincial election in October.

The original justification for the wage increase was that the inhabitants of Queen's Park weren't keeping pace with what their federal counterparts were making, and the best candidates were bolting to Ottawa.

So they included an obscure provision in the legislation that fattened their paycheques, ensuring that whenever MPs get a raise, politicians in the Legislature get one, too.

And because those in Ottawa just received a two percent bump, your friends at Queen's Park are now drawing that extra cash, as well.

Our MPPS were already the highest paid in all of Canada. And now they're earning even more at taxpayers' expense.

Their total pay hike since December now stands at 28 percent, an amount sure to infuriate those who already foot their bills - including the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation.

"I don't think anybody would have expected they would have gotten a raise four months later," fumes spokesman Kevin Gaudet. "Nobody begrudges a politician getting a pay increase year over year, perhaps, unless their base is outrageous like this is.

"This is supposed to cover for cost of living, but 25 percent in October, then 2 percent now? I didn't get a 28 percent pay raise in the last four months."

And he disputes the old line about "attracting the best people."

"This isn't all they get," he reminds. "We saw in the paper a couple days ago that there are secret travel funds that they have access to, so the government pays for their spring vacations on top of that that we don't even know about."

Those who pay those salaries are furious about the move.

"I just don't think it's justifiable at this time," gripes one.

"Other people are struggling," echoes Cathy Screeton. "I think it's too much."

How do the politicians themselves justify their second raise in less than half a year?

With the exception of the N.D.P., which publicly announced its members would donate the extra dough to charity, they don't seem to think it's an issue.

"People will have the chance to make a decision about whether they want to send me back to Queen's Park," defends Health Minister George Smitherman.

"I assume they're going to look at a wide variety of issues, and if some are more interested in this one than others, then they'll have their opportunity to ask me about it."

But Gaudet doesn't think you should wait until October to make your voice heard.

"I'd suggest the taxpayers flood their M.P.P.s' offices with phone calls and letters decrying this outrageous increase," he pleads.

The raise keeps Ontario's rulers the highest paid in Canada. What are the new totals now and how much does everyone else shell out in other provinces to keep their own governments going?

Here's a look as of April 2007 (including tax free allowances).

Ont. MPP's Salary

2006: $88,700
Jan. 2007: $111,000
April 2007: $112,990


Ont. Cabinet Minister's Salary

2006: $126,000
Jan. 2007: $158,000
April 2007: $161,000

Premier Dalton McGuinty's Salary

2006: $159,000
Jan. 2007: $199,000
April 2007: $202,600

Across Canada

British Columbia: $76,100

Alberta: $83,024

Saskatchewan: $73,191

Manitoba: $73,512

Ontario: $$112,900

Quebec: $106,682

New Brunswick: $79,507

Nova Scotia: $65,556

Prince Edward Island: $56,459

Newfoundland and Labrador: $88,064

Yukon: $65,556

Nunavut: $68,953

Northwest Territories: $97,884
(within commuting distance, $103,506 for those who have to travel)

Source: Cdn. Taxpayers Federation

Canada sues over EU seal-trade curbs

Canada sues over EU seal-trade curbs

The Associated Press

GENEVA — Canada has brought a complaint to the World Trade Organization over Belgian and Dutch rules prohibiting the sale of seal products, trade officials said Wednesday.

The annual seal hunt has long been condemned by animal rights activists as cruel and Canada is facing a number of possible bans on seal products across Europe.

Trade officials in Geneva did not have any further details about the dispute, except that it pertained to restrictions in Belgium and Netherlands.

International Trade Minister David Emerson and three other senior Canadian officials announced two months ago that Ottawa would seek formal consultations over Belgium's ban on importing and marketing seal products, which Emerson called a “violation of Belgium's international trade obligations under the WTO.”

The Globe and Mail

Then-foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay, who now has the Defence portfolio, said in July that it was regrettable that Canada needed to bring its complaint to the global commerce body.

“But Canada's government will fight bans of this kind on all fronts – people's livelihoods are at stake,” he said.

The Executive Commission of the 27-country European Union rejected appeals earlier this year for an EU-wide ban on the import of seal fur products aimed at forcing the closing of Canada's annual hunt.

The EU head office said a 1983 EU law that imposes limited bans on the import of fur taken from seal pups “provides adequate response” to concerns presented by the European Parliament.

The European Commission said the population of seals in Canada's Arctic and Atlantic regions “has grown significantly” in the past three decades from just under two million to about six million harp seals alone, and that seals are not listed as an endangered species.

EU rules impose a ban on seal products derived from newborn harp seals less than 12 days old and on hooded seals less than one year old. Environmental and animal-rights groups complain that the rules allow hunters to go after the pups once they reach an age just over the ban limit.

Canada says the biggest market for its seal products is Norway, which is not a member of the EU.

Moves by several European countries to introduce national bans have caused widespread anger among industry and trade officials in Canada.

Canada defends the hunt as vital to the survival of people in a region desperate for jobs and growth.

Voters lack confidence in their MPPs, new poll finds

Voters lack confidence in their MPPs, new poll finds

- James Cowan, National Post

TORONTO • Ontario voters have little faith in their provincial representatives, according to a new poll that shows three times as many people think their city councillor is more likely to solve their problems than their MPP.

The survey, released Monday by the Columbia Institute’s Centre for Civic Governance, showed 61% of respondents believed their local councillor is most likely to help them when needed, compared with 17% who said their MPP. But people have more faith in their provincial representatives than federal politicians: only 8% said they would turn to their MP for help.

School trustees received a similar endorsements, with 45% saying they do the best job handling education issues, compared with 21% who said it was provincial government (The final 34% of respondents either said they did not know who did the best job or did not answer the question).

The survey should be “a cause for concern” for provincial politicians, said Sean Meagher, the Centre for Civic Governance’s Ontario coordinator. Mr. Meagher said the results suggest all the political parties in the provincial election should be discussing ways to support municipalities.

“What Ontario residents seem to be saying to the provincial government is ‘you need to shoulder more of the load,’” he told reporters during a press conference at Toronto City Hall. “If your not going to provide the services directly, you should be funding them.”

Seventy-one percent of respondents also said the provincial and federal governments should provide more money for municipalities, compared with 23% who said current funding arrangements should not be changed.

“This is a report that provincial politicians should be just as interested in as I am as a local politician,” said Shelley Carroll, chairwoman of Toronto’s budget committee. “People seem to know where they’ve got to go to get services at city hall and at their school board. That is where the resources should be.”

All of the leading parties in the Ontario election have promised new funding for municipalities if elected. The Liberals’ platform promises to pay $935-million in disability and drug benefits currently covered by cities while the NDP has committed $3.6-billion towards transit, social service and court security costs.

For their part, the Progressive Conservatives would dedicate gas and fuel tax revenue to paying for roads and public transit.

The survey results suggest Ontario residents feel very differently about their politicians than people in other promises. A similar poll conducted in British Columbia found only 34.5% of respondents felt their local politicians were most likely to help when needed, compared with 26.4% who said their provincial representative and 17.5% who pointed to their MP.

The Columbia Institute is a charitable organization based in Vancouver that funds research into local governance and policy issues. Strategic Communication surveyed 605 Ontario residents on their behalf between June 5 and 12.

The results are considered accurate within four percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Good Era Banner Election Coverage




Good Era Banner Election Coverage:


This week the Era Banner did a great job of covering the election campaign. Unfortunately there has not been much mainstream media coverage of this campaign and it seems many voters have yet to get the election fever. Below are some of the articles from yesterday's Era Banner as well as a link to the main election page at www.yrng.com.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl

*************


Voting a miserable chore for 'normal' people

Columns

Sep 26, 2007 09:16 PM


By: Debora Kelly

Nobody wants to talk about the upcoming provincial election. Nobody “normal”, that is.

Even now, with advance polls open and election day just a couple of weeks away, it’s a non-issue for most of the people I know.

There are hardly any election signs on the lawns of neighbourhoods I drive through.

Sure, my colleagues, local politicians, citizens with a cause (like kids in private faith-based schools) and politically active members of our community are talking election talk.

But they’re not what I’d call normal Ontarians.

http://www.yrng.com/Opinion/Columns/article/50844 (Full Editorial)

************

Pundits weigh in on campaign

Regional News
Sep 26, 2007 09:22 PM

Pundits: Smokey Thomas, Richard Johnson, Sinclair Stevens, John Cole, Jane Wedlock, Dan Cousens, Fred Fletcher, John Taylor

Figuring out who’s going to be Ontario’s next premier might just hinge on who you ask, writes political reporter Joan Ransberry .

yorkregion.com invited political pundits to weigh in on the provincial election and how it is going so far. Slow as molasses? As lively as one can expect for Ontario? Lacking substance? One issue?

The who’s who of the game of politics are quick to tell us they think of the campaign as it passes the halfway mark.




http://www.yrng.com/News/Regional%20News/article/50847 (full article)

*****************

Ontario Election Coverage: York Region

http://elections.yorkregion.com/


*****************

Today in History: 1972 Series Win


Today in History: 1972 Series Win


September 28, 1972

For most Canadians (definitely for all Canadians over the age of 40 or so), the defining moment, nationally, culturally, athletically was the Canada-Russia 'Summit Series', played in September in 1972. Here are the final few minutes - uncut - including Paul Henderson's immortal goal. The tension, and joy when he scored, and the dismay of the Russian players, is palpable even now. The voice - of course - the late, immortal Foster Hewitt.

http://www.1972summitseries.com/index2.html


Thanks for reading...

Darryl

VoteForMMP.ca calls upon John Tory to reject appointment of MMP candidates





VoteForMMP.ca calls upon John Tory to reject appointment of MMP candidates

TORONTO, Sept. 26 /CNW/ - The VoteForMMP campaign is calling upon
Conservative Party Leader John Tory to clarify his approach to nominating
candidates under the new system.

According to a CP wire story, Mr. Tory yesterday repeated the misleading
suggestion that province-wide candidates under the new MMP electoral system
would be "appointed" rather than elected. "I think the whole notion of having
appointed people may be heading in the opposite direction that we should," Mr.
Tory is reported to have said.

"We certainly agree with Mr. Tory that appointed candidates have no place
in the province's legislature," said Rick Anderson, chair of the VoteForMMP
Campaign. "No one is proposing that there be appointed candidates under MMP -
unless Mr. Tory is intending that Conservative party province-wide list
candidates would be selected in this undemocratic manner."
Most advanced democracies have moved toward some kind of more
proportional system, as the Ontario Citizens' Assembly has recommended
Ontarians adopt.

"In all countries where MMP is used, parties use democratic processes to
nominate their list candidates - just as in Canada today the parties use
democratic processes to nominate riding candidates," said Anderson.
"Mr. Tory's remark stands to confuse and mislead voters on the matter of
whether candidates will be democratically nominated. Is he saying that the
Conservative Party will not select candidates democratically? Is he accusing
the other parties of this? Is he advocating that Ontario's Elections Act
specify how parties select candidates, a matter heretofore left to parties in
the expectation they will proceed democratically?"

About Vote for MMP: Vote for MMP is a multi-partisan citizens' campaign
supporting the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system presented to
Ontarians for adoption in the electoral reform referendum on October 10. MMP
was proposed by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, an
independent body of 103 randomly chosen Ontario voters. Assembly members were
asked by the Ontario Legislature to (a) determine whether Ontario needs a new
voting system, and (b) if so to recommend an improved system. The Assembly
studied proportional electoral systems used in 81 democracies around the
world, and selected MMP as the approach best-suited for Ontario. Vote for MMP
is funded by donations from citizens and organizations who agree with the
Citizens' Assembly recommendations, and believe it is time to strengthen
democracy and modernize Ontario's voting system that gives voters more choice,
fairer results and stronger representation.


***************

Open Letter to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 Cross posted from Conservatives for MMP.

Fellow Tories:

This past year, the Ontario Citizens Assembly, a body that had one member chosen at random from each provincial constituency, has been studying the issue of electoral reform in the province. After studying various electoral models and consulting with citizens across the province, the OCA has recommended that the province adopt a Mixed Member Proportion electoral system over the current First Past the Post System. A provincial referendum on the issue has been scheduled to coincide with the October 10 provincial election.

The signatories of this letter have been longtime supporters of the PC Party of Ontario and are active members of Fair Vote Canada. Fair Vote Canada is a multi-partisan organization that has been actively campaigning for the adoption of some form of Proportional Representation. Although FVC does not endorse a specific form of PR, it is of the opinion that almost any form would be preferable to the current system.

Proportional Representation, if adopted, will help to make the democratic process in Ontario politics more efficient and more reflective of voters' wishes in the Province. This is an issue that we, as a party, should seriously consider.

Wilfred Day, a lawyer, electoral reform expert and member of Fair Vote Ontario, wrote an article entitled An Ontario Mixed Member Proportional Model, in which he conducted a simulation of the 2003 provincial election using an MMP model of PR in which there would be a total of 139 legislative seats, both constituency and regional. Day projected what the hypothetical results would be for each party had this system been used.

Day's results demonstrated that the Liberals would only have won a minority government under MMP with 65 seats. The PC's on the other hand would have won 49 seats, almost double the amount of seats the party actually won in 2003. The NDP would have taken 24 seats and the Green Party would have taken 4 seats.

(To read the entire report, e-mail justinodonnell@cogeco.ca to request a copy.)

As you can see, this form of PR would have been of benefit to our party in 2003, in that our loss would not have been as severe, and that our party would have gotten more even representation throughout Ontario. PR can be very beneficial to our party, and not just to the NDP or Green Party as some critics have suggested.

Had Ontario had a form of Proportional Representation in the 1987 Ontario election, the Ontario PC Party would not have suffered such a devastating defeat that reduced the party to third place in the legislature. Such big shifts as what occurred in 1987 are out of proportion to the more moderate shifts in the popular vote. Adopting MMP would help introduce a degree of stability to the electoral process where swings in party support would be more moderate and in line with the overall popular vote.

Over the next two weeks, I would urge all party members to familiarize themselves with the issue. Discuss it with family members, friends and other party members and make your feelings known on this issue to them. If you want more information on the issue, go to the Vote for MMP website (http://www.voteformmp.ca/).

It is only through a healthy debate that our party can make an informed decision on such an important issue. Our party has had a strong tradition of supporting grassroots democracy and respecting the wishes of Ontario voters. By endorsing MMP, we would be continuing with that tradition.

/Signed/

Patrick Boyer, Q.C.
Once and future MP for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore

J. Justin O'Donnell, M.L.S.
Past President
Niagara Centre P.C. Association

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Great ad by Mitt Romney

"Change Begins With Us"

I think this was a very good ad by Mitt Romney. With Fred Thompson falling flat, I am starting to really like his chances of securing the Republican nomination. So far he has run a very good campaign for President.



"You're Not Helping Me" Angry Cancer Patient Tells McGuinty


Talk about a photo op going bad...
-Darryl

***********

Dalton McGuinty shows his true character when he completely ignores a terminally ill cancer patient at a hospital in Ottawa.



***********


"You're Not Helping Me" Angry Cancer Patient Tells McGuinty

Wednesday September 26, 2007

As he continues to pound the campaign trail, Premier Dalton McGuinty came face to face with perhaps one of his biggest critics Wednesday after a cancer patient at an Ottawa hospital simply refused to shake his hand.

Mike Brady, who has stage four colon cancer, told the party leader, "You're not helping me." McGuinty replied, "That's not true," before continuing with his tour.

The angry patient said McGuinty shouldn't be visiting those in hospital with similar ailments when the Ontario government doesn't provide funding for some types of cancer that other provinces and the U.S. already do.

McGuinty's response? It reminded him of how personal health care is to patients and their families.

The doctor escorting the Grit boss through the facility quickly tried to put a spin on the incident, telling McGuinty cancer patients in hospital often experience feelings of despair.

But Brady insisted he wasn't sad - just mad. "The study I was on was paid for by the drug company," he related afterwards. "If I had to rely on drugs available in Ontario I would be dead today."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Canada would be formally joining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate




Kyoto and beyond

Kyoto alternative

What is this new Asia-Pacific Partnership all about?

Last Updated September 27, 2007

As climate change continues to heat up as the foremost political issue on world leaders' minds, Canada is about to partner with the planet's biggest polluters to tackle the problem.

On Sept. 24, 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Canada would be formally joining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, the U.S.-led group that will now consist of seven countries: the U.S., China, India, Australia, South Korea, Japan and Canada.

Notably absent from the APP are European countries, which are vigorous supporters of the UN-initiated Kyoto pact.

But many of them are also in Washington this week, along with Canada, to hear U.S. President George W. Bush's plans for dealing with climate change in the years ahead.

Canada's position is that it can be both a member of the APP and a strong supporter of Kyoto. And that by joining the partnership it can try to be a bridge between some of the world's biggest polluters, such as the U.S. and China, and Kyoto stalwarts like the European Union.

The APP goal is to cut each member's output of greenhouse gases by pursuing and sharing new technologies, including those for cleaner coal, solar and nuclear power.

The APP

This new partnership, which some are now calling the AP7, has a small membership, but its partners wield a heavy hand: these seven countries account for nearly half the world's greenhouse gas production. Any actions they take, therefore, could have a real global impact.

However, most environmental groups see the group as a PR initiative and are doubtful it will make any ripples at all to stem the tide of climate change.

Critics have dubbed it Kyoto-Lite and view it as a watered-down version of the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. pulled out of and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said is unattainable, at least in the near term.

While Kyoto assigned binding goals and targets to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2012, and penalized countries that fail to meet commitments, the Asia-Pacific partnership doesn't formally oblige anyone to do anything. Each of the member countries sets its own emissions targets and timelines and faces no consequences for ignoring them. Participation is voluntary.

However, since the Asia-Pacific Partnership formed in 2005, the group has said it is not trying to replace Kyoto, but rather sees itself as a complement to it. Indeed most of the participants are still formally bound by the Kyoto protocol: only Australia and the U.S. have not signed it.

Kyoto requirements

Under Kyoto, Canada is required to cut greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012, or to 563 megatonnes a year. At last count, the country was roughly 30 per cent over that level and the Harper government has said Canada had no chance of meeting its targets under the Kyoto Protocol, and that to try would bring on huge economic problems.

Instead, the Conservative government rolled out a new Clean Air Act, which has targets that are "intensity-based", meaning the targets would be based on the intensity of emissions per unit, and not economic output.

This has become a huge point of political debate among the federal parties, most of whom favour hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions. An intensity target allows overall emissions to grow as long as the greenhouse gas producer is using energy more efficiently.

Harper has said that intensity targets, instead of hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions, are a better way to engage major polluters such as the U.S. and China.

In order for climate change policies to be effective, Harper argues, the big players must be on board. Having a hard cap, he maintains, deters countries projecting economic growth and population growth from signing on.

The 'coal pact'?

However environmentalists, such as the David Suzuki Foundation, say the Asia-Pacific Partnership undermines any U.N. efforts to combat climate change by creating a separate organization that excludes most of the world's countries.

Some critics say the APP is more about selling coal, the world's cheapest, most abundant, yet most polluting source of energy. In fact, the Asia-Pacific Partnership's other nickname is "the coal pact."

China is the world's biggest coal user, relying on it to power its generating plants and steel mills. Coal provides electricity and is needed for the coking process. Furthermore, the four Asian member countries of the AP6 account for more than half the planet's steel production. Australia, which initially conceptualized the AP6, and the U.S. are reportedly looking to expand into the Asian and Indian Markets.

With Australia's biggest competitor in the Asian steel market being Alberta's very own Fording Coal, it's easy to see why Harper would be interested in joining the AP6.

As well, the APP is a prime forum to showcase that Alberta is a hotbed for innovation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and burning "clean coal."

Clean coal refers to a process in which coal is turned into a synthetic natural gas that captures pollutants before they're released into the atmosphere. And because of it, Alberta's Genesee 3 power plant is one of the cleanest in the world. It could help Ontario with its electricity struggles, but it's not without its shortfalls, such as the conundrum of what to do with the greenhouse gas when it's been captured.

But still, "clean coal" is a technology that would be attractive to Canada's soon-to-be partners.

Tory: Supporting Children with Autism

Tory: Supporting Children with Autism



One on One with Tory: Inclusive Education

One on One with Tory: Inclusive Education


John Tory speaks frankly about his plan to include faith-based schools in Ontario's public education system and strengthen this system through shared standards of curriculum, teaching and accountability.



Wednesday, September 26, 2007

This week at the UN...Ahmadinejad, Bush, Columbia


This week at the UN...Ahmadinejad, Bush, Columbia

Eventful week at the United Nations and Columbia University this week. Below are the full videos of this year's speeches from George Bush and Ahmadinejad. I have also included some videos from protesters and also the speech and introduction from the event at Columbia University.

-Darryl


***********************


Cuban UN delegation walks out of Bush's speech



Bush Speech to UN Part 1:



Bush Speech to UN Part 2:





Israel Foreign Minister in front of the UN building 9/23/07:




Students heat up at the protest outside of Columbia University, only hours before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to give speach.



Protesters Prepare for Iranian President's Speech at UN & Columbia University



Ahmadinejad speech at Columbia University in New York City:

Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Ahmadinejad full speech at UN:



Ahmadinejad introduction and Iranian academic community response:





Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses for 10 questions of the Iranian academicians and intellectuals.




The following is the full text of the letter.

Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University President

We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran , hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country's political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.

1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran 's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran 's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.

Donald Trump: Bush should meet with Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia

Donald Trump: Bush should meet with Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia

Donald Trump for President in 2008???? Not sure why he is talking foreign affairs, but his views make a lot of sense.

-Darryl









TORY will act to protect Ontario pets!


TORY WILL ACT TO PROTECT ONTARIO PETS
Jul-22-07
http://www.johntory.ca/news.asp?id=710&type=s

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory announced today that an Ontario PC Government would take immediate action to protect pets across Ontario by strengthening the province’s weak animal protection legislation.



“Ontario has the weakest domestic animal protection laws in all of Canada,” Tory said. “Decent people have been horrified by the cruelty inflicted on innocent creatures, while Dalton McGuinty has refused to act. He has had four years to fix this problem but he has shown absolutely no leadership on this issue.”



During a visit to a local park, Tory announced that his government would act immediately to introduce legislation based upon a Private Members Bill introduced by MPP Bob Runciman on May 31, 2007. That Bill died when Dalton McGuinty ended the legislative session three weeks early on June 5th.



A John Tory Government would move immediately to:



* Strengthen protection for pets from abuse by amending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act;
* Expand the Act to include all household pets – not just dogs and cats owned by breeders;
* Catch up to other provinces by creating an offence for causing or permitting household pets to be in distress;
* Punish those found guilty of abusing their pets with penalties of up to two years in jail, fines of up to $60,000 and lifetime bans on pet ownership;
* Make it mandatory for veterinarians to report suspected cases of animal abuse;
* Ensure that farming and hunting are not unintentionally impacted by including an exemption for accepted practices of animal husbandry and management;
* Work with all parties to ensure fast passage of this legislation.

“This plan would help to address the significant weakness in the current legislation in Ontario," said Ontario SPCA Acting Chief Inspector, Hugh Coghill. “Currently only cats, kittens, dogs and puppies kept for breeding or for sale are protected under the offence section of the Act and this has left thousands of animals in peril.”



“Anyone who cruelly harms a pet deserves to face the full weight of provincial law, and should not be able to continue owning and harming pets,” Tory said. “It’s time Ontario had a Premier who will show leadership by strengthening the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.”

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Videos: John Tory position on all the major issues


Videos: John Tory positions on the issues

John Tory has put together three great websites at
www.ontariopc.com,
www.leadershipmatters.ca, and
www.grantsrus.ca/

He has also made great use of popular sites Facebook (social networking site), YouTube (videos) and Flickr (photos) to his advantage throughout this campaign.

Below is a series of videos that outlines John Tory's positions on everything from education to health care to democratic reform to the environment and to issues specific to York Region.

I am confident that as people get to know John Tory in the final weeks of this campaign, he will connect with voters and make a great premier for this province. Please take the time to view these videos.

Thanks for reading,

Darryl


*********

Tory wins debates:






Investing 2.44 Billion into public education:

As children across Ontario headed back to school, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory pledged to improve public education in Ontario by initiating an urgent review to fix the provincial funding formula and investing an additional $2.44 billion over the next four years.



John Tory speaks frankly about his plan to include faith-based schools in Ontario's public education system and strengthen this system through shared standards of curriculum, teaching and accountability.



John Tory and MPP Frank Klees announce the PC Party Plan to appoint former Premier Bill Davis to lead a commission to help make Ontario's public school system more inclusive of faith-based schools.



John Tory, with PC Party Candidates Tim Peterson and David Brown, discover schools in Mississauga South closed for the summer. Tory says a PC Government will provide for open schools in communities year-round across Ontario.



John Tory on Cleaning up Lake Simcoe, Environment, Natural Resources, Energy:

John Tory and Ontario PC Party MPPs announce a plan to clean up Lake Simcoe that includes a $12 million investment over the next two years. Increased levels of phosphorus in the Lake from both urban and rural sources have resulted in a significant disruption in the Lake's ecosystem and threatened its sustainability.



While in Peterborough, John Tory said a PC government would revive the Ministry of Natural Resources and restore funding to Ontario's fish and wildlife program.




John Tory announces how a Progressive Conservative government would lead by example and address Climate Change by committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, backing these targets up with specific 4-year plans and create a scorecard to measure provincial environmental progress.



PC Party Leader John Tory rolled up his sleeve for a blood test by Environmental Defense to check for toxic contaminants and later announced a made-in-Ontario plan to reduce toxins in the Province by working with the federal government and businesses.



At the annual Toronto Leader's Dinner, John Tory said the province needs new leadership to get back on track. He also outlined part of his plan for tackling climate change and promoting innovative and clean energy sources.





Health Care:

John Tory, his wife Barbara Hackett and several Ontario PC Party Candidates visited the home of a London family who pay $600 per year towards McGuinty's Health Tax. Tory plans to eliminate this tax and increase health care investment in other areas.



John Tory plans to ramp up Ontario's electronic health care system by investing an additional $540 million over the next four years to ensure that each Ontarian has a secure, private lifetime record of their patient history by 2014.



On April 17th, John Tory detailed the first part of a PC Party plan to address Ontario's long-term care deficit during a speech to the Ontario Long Term Care Association and Ontario Retirement Communities Association.



Alongside Ontario By-Election candidates, John Tory addresses the crisis facing emergency wait times and demands action from the McGuinty government.



One of three new ads launched by the Ontario PC Party featuring John Tory in conversation with real Ontarians.



Autism:

First day back in the Legislature for Spring Session, John Tory grills Dalton McGuinty on the court action against parents of children with autism. New PC Party MPP Joyce Savoline is also welcomed into the Legislature.



Slush funds and Liberal Waste:









On Broken Promises:

John Tory returned to the scene of Dalton McGuinty's tax crime where four years ago he signed a pledge to the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation that he would not raise taxes. Tory was presented with the original pledge and he vowed to eliminate McGuinty's $2.6 billion so-called 'health tax'.



In a comprehensive presentation, John Tory walked reporters through the details of the Ontario PC Party's platform costing and spoke of a plan that is both affordable and achievable.



One of three new ads launched by the Ontario PC Party featuring John Tory in conversation with real Ontarians.



Investing 100% of gas tax on roads and public transit, property tax, cities/towns:

John Tory demands action on the GTA's crippling gridlock issue.



While filling up at a Toronto gas station, John Tory said a PC government will reduce gridlock by investing every penny of the gas tax into improving roads and transit in Ontario.



At the AMO conference John Tory detailed the two-pronged approach a PC government will take to help Ontario municipalities struggling to fund services through property taxes. Tory's plan focuses on a massive investment in roads, bridges and transit plus a commitment to address the costs of social services in partnership with municipalities starting in 2008.



John Tory stood outside the offices of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to reinforce his commitment to protect Ontario homeowners from skyrocketing property assessment increases that put them at risk of losing their homes.



Getting tough on Crime:

John Tory visited residents at Driftwood Court, in the Jane and Finch neighbourhood, where they shared ideas on ending gun violence. Tory called for a multi-point plan and said McGuinty's planned review is an inadequate response to community safety concerns.



At a meeting of the Police Association of Ontario, John Tory announced that a PC government will put another 200 police officers on the streets, fix the justice system and support kids and families in at-risk neighbourhoods.



John Tory was in Scarborough's Galloway neighbourhood, where he met with a local group of residents concerned with the increasing rate of violent crime. In the Kingston-Galloway-Morningside area alone, six people have been murdered so far this year - double the number killed last year at the same time.



In Caledonia One Rule for All:

While in Brantford, John Tory said that the overarching, defining principle for our justice system in Ontario is simple: there is one law for everyone - no one is beneath the law, no one is above the law and no one is beyond the law.



Supporting Farmers:

While visiting a pick-your-own farm in St. Thomas, John Tory promoted the PC plan to expand and promote the purchase of Ontario-grown products throughout the province.



John Tory says farmers are an integral part of our province and announces the new PC Party plan for agriculture that will see increased financial and organizational support for farmers and their products.



Democratic Reform, Peterson to run as Conservative:

While at the site of the province's first parliament buildings - the corner of Front and Parliament Streets in Toronto - John Tory outlined his plan to improve the way Queen's Park works. Tory wants to work with other Party Leaders to have more free votes; broaden the powers for the Speaker to discipline unruly MPPs by suspending them without pay; and introduce more family-friendly sitting hours for the House.



John Tory announces the launch of the new and improved Ontario PC Party website, video blog and talks about the upcoming February 8, 2007 by-elections.



On March 29, 2007 MPP Tim Peterson joined John Tory to announce he is leaving the Liberal Caucus and will run as a PC candidate for the riding of Mississauga South in the October 2007 election. Until then, he will sit as an independent MPP in the Legislature.



Getting Ontario Back on Track:

On March 23, 2007, in a post-budget address, John Tory tells the Economic Club of Toronto that Ontario is slipping under McGuinty's watch and needs real leadership to get it back on track.




One of three new ads launched by the Ontario PC Party featuring John Tory in conversation with real Ontarians.



OPCYA:

Be Smart. On October 10th vote for John Tory and the Ontario PC Party



World must help bring Democracy to Burma, assist in ending house arrest for Aung San Suu Kyi





World must help bring Democracy to Burma, assist in ending house arrest for Aung San Suu Kyi

With the appropriate international pressure (especially from China), I think these protests could finally bring democracy to Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for decades despite being the democratically elected leader of the nation, was recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize and is the best hope for stability in this impoverished nation. I think the international community should pressure China and crack down on the military junta through sanctions and by supporting the protests. The Olympics and willingness of the respected Buddhist monks opens up a great opportunity to bring about change in this part of the world. The Olympics should also be used to pressure China to get tough with the regime in Sudan as well. Hopefully as leaders gather at the UN, this issue will make it to the top of the international agenda. We cannot pass up on this opportunity.

Thanks for reading…

Darryl




************

Burmese rulers warn protesters

REUTERS PHOTO

Buddhist monks march through the streets in Rangoon’s city centre yesterday in a massive anti-government demonstration.

Burma no stranger to dissent

Burma has been under military dictatorship almost continuously since 1962.

By 1988, it was suffering from a deteriorating economy. There was also widespread discontent, spearheaded by students and Buddhist monks, against military rule and a lack of political freedoms.

Aug. 8, 1988 – Troops fire on Rangoon protesters demanding democracy, killing some 3,000 people.

Sept. 18, 1988 – A new coup took place, but the military promised to allow opposition parties and to organize elections. Those promises later proved to be illusory.

September 1988 – Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi (right), daughter of the country's independence hero, formed the National League for Democracy.

July 20, 1989 – The military regime responded to her growing political strength by placing her under house arrest. She has been detained for about 12 of the last 18 years.

May 28, 1990 – Suu Kyi's detention didn't prevent her party from winning a landslide in elections, but the military government refused to recognize the results. It has held on to power ever since.

Dec. 10, 1991 – Suu Kyi awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

May 6, 2002 – Junta released Suu Kyi from house arrest and let her tour country to huge crowds.

May 30, 2003 – The government seized her again and placed her under even stricter house arrest.

Aug. 19, 2007 – Protests began in response to sharp, unannounced fuel price increases of up to 500 per cent.They were led at first by former student protesters and other activists, but most of these leaders have since been arrested or are in hiding.

Sept. 18 – Monks began their protests, apparently motivated by an attack on a small demonstration at which security officers beat a number of monks.

Saturday – More than 500 monks and sympathizers marched to where Suu Kyi is under house arrest. She greeted them from her gate in her first public appearance in more than four years.

Sunday – Buddhist monks lead more than 20,000 people through the streets of Rangoon.


But pro-democracy activists are hopeful military won't use brutal force to stop peaceful marches

Sep 25, 2007 04:30 AM

Olivia Ward
FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER

The blood-red robes of Buddhist monks merged with the threadbare garments of civilians across Burma today, as streams of demonstrators poured onto the streets to protest the ruling military junta.

Local officials rode trucks through the streets, warning over loud- speakers that the regime would "take action" against the religious leaders. Fears of a new crackdown continue to escalates as hopes for a Ukrainian-style "orange revolution" hang in the balance.

"They may be planning to use brutal force, but that would be very dangerous," warned Aung Din, a former Burmese pro-democracy leader who was imprisoned after a 1988 uprising in which some 3,000 people were killed.

"Those monks are highly respected and it could be a trigger point," he said from Washington, where he heads the U.S. Campaign for Burma.

The Buddhist clergy began daily marches on Sept. 18, after the junta failed to apologize for injuring several monks at a protest in the city of Pakokku. They called for public support, rallying more than 100,000 people including high-profile journalists and entertainers.

Yesterday, world leaders attending a United Nations summit called for restraint. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned against action against the demonstrators.

An aide said U.S. President George W. Bush would announce new sanctions against "key members of the regime and those that provide financial support to them," as well as a visa ban on junta members and their families "associated with the negative activities of the regime."

Earlier, in Burma, also known as Myanmar, Religion Minister Brig.-Gen. Thura Myint Maung had warned that "if the monks go against the rules and regulations in the authority of the Buddhist teachings, we will take action under the existing law."

So far the demonstrators have ignored the prospective danger.

In driving rain and fierce sunshine, crowds have taken to the street to express their growing resentment of the junta's repression and economic mismanagement, which has led to the starvation of thousands of Burmese, and spiking inflation as gasoline prices surged by 500 per cent in the past month.

Protests spread to Mandalay, Sittwe, Bago and other towns, where they met with little resistance. In Rangoon, monks were briefly allowed to pray outside the home of detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Pro-democracy groups say that supporters' ranks have swelled to more than 200,000.

But in Burma's tightly closed society – ruled by one of the most repressive regimes in the world – even experts find it hard to guess the outcome of the protests.

"Everything is in our favour now," said Tin Maunt Htoo, executive director of the pro-democracy Canadian Friends of Burma. "The movement is growing to all walks of life. The monks are at the forefront and they are very respected. If (the junta) touches them it may not stay in power."

Even before the disastrous 1988 crackdown on the pro-democracy demonstrations, in which monks took part but did not lead, the military rulers have tried to pacify the clergy with favours, says Bruce Matthews, a Burma expert and professor emeritus of comparative religion at Acadia University in Nova Scotia.

"The magnitude of their involvement in the demonstrations is new," he said in a phone interview. "For the past 25 years the junta has made every effort to patronize the monks. They've renovated temples, and made sure the lifestyle of the senior monks was comfortable, in terms of cars and residences."

But analysts say the success of the latest democracy efforts depends not only on the monks – but on China's influence, and the loyalty of the Burmese military.

"In the last year or so, China is trying to play a moderating role," says Paul Evans, co-CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. "Part of that has to do with suppressing the movement of drugs across the border from Burma, which has brought some positive intervention."

China is Burma's major economic client and arms supplier. But it is anxious to fend off questions about links to human rights violators before the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

The ultimate key to victory for the pro-democracy movement is the 400,000-strong army, experts say. In most "peaceful revolutions" across the world, demonstrations only toppled governments when the armed forces held their fire.

"Burmese army members are making a good living, and they have family members to support," Matthews points out. "There are probably more than 1 million people directly dependent on the junta. That means the army won't give in easily to the demonstrators."

Brian John, a national co-ordinator for Myanmar (Burma) for Amnesty International Canada, says it is a good sign that the regime has not used gangs of plainclothes thugs to attack demonstrators.

And he adds, "maybe we're reaching a tipping point where any violence toward monks could turn not just civilians but rank-and-file military against their leaders. Civilians are linking hands as a cordon against military police in acts of courage that make you weep. I'm more hopeful today than I have been for the past 19 years."

World leaders urge military to show calm

The junta's secretive supremo

Five facts about the Burmese military junta's most powerful figure, Than Shwe:

Born in British-controlled central Burma in February 1933. Than Shwe joined the army in 1953 and rose through the ranks to become military supremo with the official title "Senior General" in 1992.

On taking power, he said the junta that seized power in a 1962 coup would "not hold onto power for long," sparking hopes of civilian government. Since then, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has spent most of her time either in prison or under house arrest.

Than Shwe is rarely seen in public or out of uniform. One notable exception was his appearance at a secretly leaked video of his daughter's wedding in 2006. The ceremony's lavishness sparked outrage among Burma's 53 million people, among the poorest in Asia.

He is known to have an intense personal dislike of Suu Kyi and is alleged to have walked out of a meeting with a foreign envoy when her name was mentioned.

Rumours about his failing health and imminent demise are common.


Reuters



*******

Burmese protesters defy warning
Monks have called for political prisoners to be freed

Tens of thousands of monks and civilians in Burma's main city Rangoon have defied military warnings and staged new anti-government protests.

Some chanted "we want dialogue". Others simply shouted "democracy, democracy".

Earlier, lorries with loudspeakers warned residents that the protests could be "dispersed by military force".

After the march finished, eyewitnesses told two news agencies they had seen several military trucks moving on Rangoon's streets.

LATEST PROTESTS
Map of Burma and close up of Rangoon
1. Shwedagon Pagoda. Tens of thousands of protesters, led by monks, gathered here at start of march
2.Sule Pagoda. Students joined the protest, passing nearby city hall

Reuters reported that eight trucks carrying armed riot police and 11 carrying troops had moved into the city centre.

The security forces stayed in the vehicles while a few hundred people looked on, AFP said.

Tens of thousands of monks and supporters had earlier marched from Shwedagon pagoda into the commercial centre of Rangoon, where they gathered around Sule pagoda and nearby city hall, witnesses told AFP.

Protesters addressed the crowd outside city hall.

"National reconciliation is very important for us... The monks are standing up for the people," proclaimed poet Aung Way.

One monk told the Associated Press: "People do not tolerate the military government any longer."

The BBC's Jonathan Head in Bangkok says monks - who have been spearheading the protest campaign - have been handing out pictures of Burmese independence hero Aung San, the deceased father of detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

They were also carrying flags, including some bearing the image of a fighting peacock used by students during the 1988 pro-democracy uprising, witnesses told Reuters.

Students were also openly marching, says the BBC Burmese Service. In earlier marches they had simply formed a chain and clapped.

PROTESTS MOUNT
15 Aug: Junta doubles fuel prices, sparking protests
5 Sept: Troops injure several monks at a protest in Pakokku
17 Sept: The junta's failure to apologise for the injuries draws fresh protests by monks
18-21 Sept: Daily marches by monks in Burmese cities gradually gather in size
22 Sept: 1,000 monks march to the home of Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon
23 Sept: Up to 20,000 march in Rangoon
24 Sept: New Rangoon march draws at least 50,000 and 24 other towns join in

"Some students are in the middle of exams at this time," one of the students told the BBC. "But they have left their exam rooms and come out onto the streets, joining hands with the public, fighting for the country under the guidance of the monks."

The junta, which violently repressed the 1988 protests killing some 3,000 people, finally broke its silence over the mounting protests late on Monday, saying it was ready to "take action" against the monks.

It repeated the warning on state media, ordering monks not to get involved in politics and accusing them of allowing themselves to be manipulated by the foreign media.

International reaction

At the opening of the UN General Assembly in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged Burma's rulers to exercise restraint in the face of the growing protests.

US President George W Bush is to use his speech - due shortly - to announce further sanctions against Burma's ruling military junta, the White House has said.



The US is hoping it will encourage other nations to act and embolden the protesters on Burma's streets, says the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington.

Close neighbour China called for "stability", and the European Union has also urged the junta to show the "utmost restraint" and to take the opportunity to "launch a process of real political reform".

The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has given his backing to the monks' call for freedom and democracy.

The protests were triggered by the government's decision to double the price of fuel last month, hitting people hard in the impoverished nation.

**************

Chinese dilemma over Burma protests
By Michael Bristow
BBC News, Beijing

Buddhist monks pray at Shwedagon pagoda during a protest against the military government on Monday, Sept. 24, 2007
China has kept its distance from the unfolding events in Burma
China, which has become one of Burma's main supporters over recent years, has remained largely silent about the current protests.

Beijing is traditionally reluctant to speak publicly about the internal affairs of other countries.

But, despite this, there are signs that Chinese politicians are anxious to help stabilise the political situation in Burma.

They perhaps do not want to tarnish China's image ahead of next year's Beijing Olympics by appearing to support any military crackdown in Burma.

Officially, China is playing down its ability to influence events in Burma.

"China always adopts a policy of non-interference," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu at a regular press briefing.

It is in China's long-term business interests to make sure its neighbour is stable

"As Myanmar's (Burma's) neighbour, China hopes to see stability and economic development in Myanmar," she added.

"The stability of Myanmar serves the interest of Myanmar itself and the interests of the international community."

But China's ties with the military junta ruling Burma go deep, and include expanding trade links, the sale of military hardware and diplomatic support.

Energy corridor

"In the last decade or two, with the improving economic situation in China and the increasing isolation of Burma, China has become increasingly important to the regime," said a spokesman for the Asian Human Rights Commission, based in Hong Kong.

The relationship between Burma and China is mainly based on trade. Burma, which has very little industry itself, imports manufactured goods from China.

"If you walk around the streets in Burma, particularly in the north, the overwhelming majority of manufactured goods are Chinese made," said the commission spokesman, who regularly visits Burma.

That trade is reflected in official Chinese figures, which show that exports from China to Burma were up by 50% in the first seven months of this year. They were worth $964m (£479m).

A monk shouts through a loudspeaker in Rangoon on 24 September 2007
Beijing does not want to be associated with any crackdown

Burma mainly exports raw materials, such as timber and gems, to China.

According to research published a few days ago by EarthRights International, 26 Chinese multinational firms were involved in 62 major projects in Burma over the last decade.

These include the construction of oil and gas pipelines stretching 2,380km (1,479 miles) from Burma's Arakan coast to China's Yunnan Province.

The rights group, based in the United States and South East Asia, says this is to help China import oil and gas from the Middle East, Africa and South America.

Official Chinese figures say total imports from Burma amounted to just $146m in the first seven months of this year.

But others doubt the accuracy of these figures. Rights group Global Witness estimated timber exports to China alone were worth $350m in 2005 - most of it illegally exported.

China also sells Burma military hardware, according to the Asian Human Rights Commission.

And Beijing used its veto in the United Nations' Security Council in January to block criticism of Burma's military junta.

'Restore stability'

But despite these deep links, China has shown signs of promoting reform in Burma over recent months.

Tang Jiaxuan (r) meets Burmese Foreign Minister U Nyan Win on 13 September 2007
Earlier this month China urged Burma to maintain stability

In June this year it hosted low-profile talks in Beijing between representatives from the US and Burma.

And earlier this month, senior Chinese diplomat Tang Jiaxuan had some advice for visiting Burmese Foreign Minister U Nyan Win.

"China whole-heartedly hopes that Myanmar (Burma) will push forward a democracy process that is appropriate for the country," he said, according to state-run Xinhua news agency.

Tang, who acts as a foreign policy adviser, said China "hoped Myanmar would restore internal stability as soon as possible, properly handle issues and actively promote national reconciliation".

China is perhaps wary of backing a regime that might order a violent crackdown of protesters ahead of next year's Beijing Olympics.

Beijing is extremely sensitive to criticism about any of its foreign policies before the event is held. They do not want anything to spoil the games.

Chinese officials have already tried to limit criticism of Beijing's support for Sudan by backing a UN plan that aims to bring peace to the African country's troubled Darfur region.

And, as the Asian Human Rights Commission spokesman said, it is in China's long-term business interests to make sure its neighbour is stable.


Monday, September 24, 2007

Harper calls for new climate agreement

Harper calls for new climate agreement

Posted 32d ago | Comment | Recommend E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this
 Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, left, shakes hands with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during a photo-op before their meeting at the United Nations in New York Monday Sept. 24, 2007.  (AP Photo/Tom Hanson, THE CANADIAN PRESS)
by TOM HANSON, AP
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, left, shakes hands with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during a photo-op before their meeting at the United Nations in New York Monday Sept. 24, 2007. (AP Photo/Tom Hanson, THE CANADIAN PRESS)
NEW YORK — Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper emphasized the United States and China when he called for a new international climate agreement Tuesday that places binding targets on top emitters for curbing global-warming gases.

Harper participated in a climate summit at the United Nations, a meeting meant to garner support for negotiations to begin at a December conference in Indonesia for a new global agreement to replace the Kyoto climate pact. Later this week, he will participate in a U.S.-led climate gathering in Washington.

"Let me be clear. Canada believes we need a new international protocol that contains binding targets for all the world's major emitters, including the United States and China," the Canadian leader said in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. "And it is through such targets that the development and deployment of new clean-energy technology will be stimulated."

Canada, which ratified the Kyoto accord, is failing to meet its Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

But the minority Harper government's parliamentary opposition has pushed through a law demanding compliance, and the government now claims its plans will reduce emissions 20 percent below 2006 levels by 2020.

Harper and President Bush have both expressed concerns that certain mandates on curbing greenhouse gas emissions would hurt their economies. Bush also has said such emissions caps should apply to poorer nations as well, such as China and India, exempted under Kyoto.

"The solution to climate change cannot and will not be 'one size fits all,' but neither can nations treat this issue as someone else's responsibility," Harper said.

Harper has said he would join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate -- a voluntary U.S.-led forum that many see as a rival to the Kyoto Protocol and an inadequate solution for global warming.

The forum, which also comprises Australia, China, Japan, South Korea and India, seeks to reduce pollution by promoting cleaner technologies but does not set limits on the amounts of global-warming carbon that a member country can produce.

Many governments hope the Indonesia conference will initiate talks for a deeper-cutting, long-range emissions agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. But a new deal would almost certainly require a change in the position of the U.S., long the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

The 175-nation Kyoto pact, which the U.S. rejects, requires 36 industrial nations to reduce the heat-trapping gases emitted by power plants and other industrial, agricultural and transportation sources. The 1997 agreement set relatively small target reductions averaging 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Dalton's Comments on his own Record

Dalton's Comments on his own Record


Report on Liberal Slush funds and grants

Report on Liberal Slush funds and grants










Good NDP Ad

Good NDP Ad


Flaherty presses for stock exchange merger

Flaherty presses for stock exchange merger

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty called on the Montreal Exchange Inc. [MXX-T] and TSX Group Inc. [X-T] to resume stalled merger talks, saying it would be in the national interest for the country's two main financial market operators to pursue combining.

“I encourage them to pursue those negotiations because I think it's in the best interests of the country,” Mr. Flaherty told reporters in Montreal after a speech to the financial community sponsored by the MX.

He said he wanted to “encourage them along the path to success” in the talks.

The MX, which operates a fast-growing market for options and futures, approached the TSX about a merger about a year ago, but was rebuffed, the exchange's CEO Luc Bertrand said Monday. Mr. Bertrand said he welcomed Mr. Flaherty's attempt to restart talks.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Jeff McIntosh/CP

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. (Jeff McIntosh/CP)

Montreal Exchange

TSX Group


Montreal Exchange and TSX Group shares over the last three months.

Recent

The Globe and Mail

“As a policy maker responsible for this area, he worries about these things and that's perfectly within his realm of duties,” Mr. Bertrand said.

Mr. Bertrand argues a merger would be best for the customers of the two exchanges and would be in the national interest by creating one united company rather than two competitors weak from fighting one another.

A merger of the two exchanges is complicated by financial factors, because of vastly differing valuations investors give the firms. Politics also comes into play.

A deal would require support of regulators in both Ontario and Quebec, which has been fiercely protective of the MX and proud of its success.

A federal minister weighing in on the issue with the exchange's backing will have unpredictable results in Quebec and with the provincial government, however Mr. Flaherty brought along his top Montreal lieutenant, Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, lending weight to the endorsement. Mr. Fortier is a former investment banker and a leading member of the city's financial professionals.

Mr. Bertrand would not say why earlier talks broke down, but sources have told The Globe and Mail that the TSX believes that by pursuing its own strategy in Montreal's specialty of derivatives it can steal enough of the Montreal Exchange's business to knock down the price of a takeover or make it unnecessary.

The two companies can go head-to-head when a non-compete agreement expires in 2009.

TSX spokesman Steve Kee declined to comment on Mr. Flaherty's statement.

A group of major shareholders, frustrated by the lack of progress, has also been agitating for a deal.

The group includes vocal Canadian money manager Tom Caldwell, a specialist in exchanges, who has suggested locking the principals of the MX and the TSX in a room with orders not to come out until a deal is done.

Mr. Flaherty's comments come against a backdrop of exchange mergers around the world as bourses attempt to gather under one roof all the products an investor could want.

Even the MX and TSX have made alliances with major U.S. partners as they prepare to compete.

Mr. Bertrand has become openly frustrated and critical of the TSX's tactics in preparation for competition, decrying what he called “the expropriation” of a key contract by the TSX and arguing that it is violating the spirit of the non-compete agreement.

The TSX, for its part, says it must prepare for competition, but TSX CEO Richard Nesbitt said recently that none of the deals it has done preclude a combination with Montreal if the right deal can be found.

Financial analysts who follow the industry say that the two companies could cut costs and please customers by merging. Analyst Robert Sedran of National Bank Financial wrote in a report last Friday that “a merger would be the best outcome for both companies.”

Dion Not a Leader

The ad that started it all

Liberal priorities, Ignatieff attacking his leadership a perception of Dion as a weak leader. The reality is negative attack ads work and since the beginning of the year, Dion has failed to change the perceptions of him that were painted by these ads. An election on December 3 due to the government falling on the government throne speech???? I think Dion should think long and hard before triggering an election he has very little chance of winning.





Andrew Coyne: Conservatives should support MMP


Andrew Coyne: Conservatives should support MMP

Andrew is one of the brightest Conservative minds in the media today. I really enjoyed this column he wrote on the weekend for the National Post on the upcoming Ontario referendum.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl


*******************

Why conservatives should support proportional representation
Andrew Coyne, National Post
Published: Saturday, September 22, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=5dd45bb7-b8d2-49f6-b20d-1e69690b8838&p=2

On points, I'd have to give Thursday night's Ontario election debate to John Tory. The Progressive Conservative leader was poised, articulate, punchy and surprisingly focused. All in all, he made a strong case for ? much the same.

A Tory government would Plan Better, and Spend Smarter. It would also Tell the Truth -- we have his word on it. But in the broad strokes, the government of Ontario would look much the same under Mr. Tory as under Dalton McGuinty. It would do much the same things, at much the same cost, with much the same results.

Oh, Mr. Tory would fiddle at the margins -- cut a tax or two, expand funding to a few thousand kids in religious schools -- issues that both leaders would like you to think show the vast gulf between them. But they're not kidding anyone. Whoever wins, the forecast is for McGuintory governments, as far as the eye can see.



I'm not blaming either man. Both are simply responding to the incentives in our political system -- notably the method of voting. Sometimes known as "first past the post" (FPTP), sometimes called "plurality" voting, it should really be called the "winner take all" system, since that captures its most essential dynamic.

Whoever gets the most votes in a riding, no matter how few, wins; they may only have 25% of the vote, but they get 100% of the representation. Likewise in the aggregate: A third of the vote is commonly sufficient to win two-thirds of the seats -- and all of the power. In such a system, as we have seen, victory or defeat can turn on the swing of one or two percentage points.

Living on a knife-edge does strange things to people. On the one hand, it leaves the parties in a perpetual fever of anticipation, convinced they have only to gain a few points in the polls to destroy their opponents. That is one reason the two former federal conservative parties, Progressive Conservative and Reform, were so reluctant to merge. It is also the reason why minority

governments tend, under our system, to be so unstable.

On the other hand, the consequences of losing a few points makes them excessively, almost neurotically cautious, unwilling to take the slightest risk or advocate the mildest change, but each hugging as close as it can to the median voter, the status quo and each other. Hence the dominance of the two brokerage parties, indistinguishable in philosophy --alike, that is, in the lack of it.

Put the two together, and you have much of Canadian politics -- viciously partisan, yet unspeakably trivial; much ado about nothing much. McGuintoryism, in short.

So the case for electoral reform, it seems to me, is one that conservatives, if not Conservatives, should find appealing. It is

a cause that has tended, historically, to be identified with the left, not least in the current referendum debate; many conservatives have accordingly rejected it. Yet it is not the left that has suffered most under the current system. It's the right.

By whatever combination of historical circumstances, the left has a party that will advance its ideas, free of the brokerage parties' grip: the NDP. Though not often in government, outside of the West, it has succeeded in dragging the entire political spectrum to the left, its policies adopted by Liberal and Conservative governments alike. Nothing like it exists on the right, federally or provincially, nor has since Reform's demise. Nor is one likely to emerge, so long as "first past the post" remains the rule.

The same is true of parties less easily categorized, like the Green party. Though it is the party of choice for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, it has yet to win a seat, unable to concentrate its support geographically in the way that FPTP requires. How many more votes might it win if potential supporters were not disheartened at the prospect of "wasting" their votes, or worse, "splitting" the vote, as they are forever warned against doing?

But what if there were a system in which no votes were wasted, where vote-splitting ceased to be an issue? There is such a system, and it's called proportional representation, of which the proposal before Ontarians in the upcoming referendum is a variant. Not only the Greens, but other parties -- libertarian, social-conservative, or other -- might then have a fighting chance. The spectrum of acceptable ideas for debate would noticeably broaden.

Moreover, because the "winner take all" dynamic would have been broken -- parties get roughly the share of the seats their proportion of the vote would suggest, rather than the highly leveraged payoffs under FPTP -- all parties would have less fear of taking risks. True, there would also be less upside: Progress would only come by sustained advocacy over many years. Conservatives grouse that a Mike Harris revolution would be unlikely, but so would the NDP disaster that preceded it.

So conservatives, genuine conservatives, have a choice. Hold on to the current system, and hope for a Harris-style change of government every 50 years or so. Or take a chance on something new, and start changing minds today.

ac@andrewcoyne.com

New John Tory and PC Ontario Ad Campaign: Broken Promises have Consequences

New John Tory and PC Ontario Ad Campaign: Broken Promises have Consequences





Dalton admits to broken promises; raising taxes

Dalton admits to broken promises; raising taxes



Ontario Election Debate: Autism

Ontario Election Debate: Autism



Beer in Ontario Corner Stores????


Beer in Ontario Corner Stores????

An idea that is long overdue in my opinion.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl


**********

Idea of beer and wine at corner stores floated


Tory says Conservatives would set up test markets with goal of boosting homegrown industry
Sep 24, 2007 04:30 AM

THE CANADIAN PRESS

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory is vowing to look at selling Ontario wine and beer in convenience stores as a way of boosting the profile of homegrown booze if he's elected Oct. 10.

A Conservative government would set up a few "test markets" where Ontario craft beer and wine is sold outside the confines of the LCBO, Tory told The Canadian Press in an interview last week.

"I would look at a couple of test markets to see if you had wine and beer being sold somewhere else," said Tory, who noted one need only go to Alberta or Quebec, not Europe, to buy alcohol in a supermarket or corner store.

"A lot of people think it's just part of civilized, normal life. That's why I say I would like to sit down and talk to everybody about it."

The idea was first floated in April by Liberal backbencher Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls) who introduced a private members' bill that was welcomed by grape growers and convenience store operators but quickly shot down by Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Yesterday, the Liberals put out a release questioning what Tory really believes on the issue. In April, the release notes, Tory told reporters the province should not "get carried away with having alcohol too available in too many places, because there are aspects of that that I think a lot of parents and others are concerned about."

He also said he would not see it as a priority that access to alcohol be expanded. "... I think we have lots of alcohol available, it doesn't have to be in walking distance of every citizen."

Yesterday, Tory said that opening a new market for Ontario beer and wine would help boost an industry that's getting a "raw deal" right now from provincial beer and liquor stores.

"These big, foreign-owned breweries control the Brewer's Retail and I think we have to fix that. They (local brewers) create jobs and they're entrepreneurs in Ontario," Tory said. "I think, similarly, the wineries in Ontario are getting a bit of a raw deal when it comes to shelf space in the LCBO."

But that desire to expand the market for Ontario beverages has to be balanced with the safety concerns of police and parents, Tory said.

"There are issues with it. You have to be careful that young people don't get access to alcohol they shouldn't get," he said. "I don't think people have trouble getting alcohol right now."

Although many argue setting up mini-liquor stores in local supermarkets will encourage underage drinking and take a chunk out of the province's coffers, it's something convenience store operators have been begging for.

Dave Bryans, president of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, dismissed concerns about the idea, saying people are always afraid of change. But like Sunday shopping, Bryans said allowing alcohol to be sold at corner stores is just the natural evolution of retail.

The Liberals aren't prepared to entertain the idea. "We have every confidence in the system that is in place right now," McGuinty said.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Progress in Iraq??? Moveon.org




Progress in Iraq???

The following is the most recent ad campaign targeted at 2008 Presidential candidates as well as Republicans and George Bush in general. Moveon.org has 3.2 million members and is one of the largest sources of funding for many democratic candidates in the United States. The above ad "General Betray Us" was condemned in the US senate by a margin of 72-25 with 20 Democrats joining Republicans on the vote. Personally, I think these ads are fair and within the norms of freedom of speech. I also think that it is clear that in 2006 America voted Democrats into office to END this war. That is why they won. Up until this point, Democrats have done nothing more than agree to continue funding Bush's war in Iraq and surge strategy. They have failed the voters who put them into office and must change course now! Motions such as this are one of many reasons why Congress approval ratings are as low as the President and why so many Americans believe their Congressman and Senators are out of touch with the views of most people. I believe the time has come to cut the funding for this illegal and immoral war, and end it as soon as possible in a responsible way (likely a three state solution). Why has Bush not implemented the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group? The diversion of Iraq has hurt the mission in Afghanistan, allowed Bin Laden to get away with 9/11, cost America it's moral authority in the world and strengthened Iran and other extremists in the region. Worse it was based on outright lies and not supported by either NATO or the UN. The best way to support the troops in Iraq at this point is to bring them home as soon as possible. I agree that anything less is a complete "betrayal of trust" and I applaud moveon.org for having the courage to speak for the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose this war and this President.


Thanks for reading...


Darryl



*****************

Senate votes to condemn MoveOn, Clinton votes no


Clinton voted against a Senate measure Thursday that condemns MoveOn.org.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Senate overwhelmingly voted to formally condemn the liberal organization MoveOn.org Thursday for its recent publication of an ad questioning the credibility of the top commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus.

Twenty Democrats joined the Republicans in the 72-25 vote that officially repudiates the group's ad. Sen. Joe Lieberman, an Independent from Connecticut, also voted for the measure, sponsored by Texas Republican John Cornyn. (Related: Bush: MoveOn.org ad on Petraeus 'disgusting')

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, who has been criticized by several Republican presidential rivals for not formally distancing herself from the organization, voted against the measure.

As for the other 2008 Senate Democratic hopefuls, Chris Dodd of Connecticut voted against the measure while Barack Obama ofIllinois and Joe Biden of Delaware did not vote.

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan issued a statement highly critical of both Clinton and Obama shortly after the votes were cast.

“Senators Clinton and Obama need to decide whether they’re running for America, or running for MoveOn.org," he said. "If Clinton and Obama cannot bring themselves to take a stand against a vicious attack on the man leading our forces in Iraq, why should American voters believe they are capable of demonstrating the leadership we need in a Commander in Chief?”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was also highly critical of Clinton, saying in a statement her vote raises questions over whether she would be a "credible commander-in-chief."

"Hillary Clinton had a choice," he said. "She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter.

"The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief," he added, a reference to Clinton's comments to Petraeus at a recent Senate Armed Service Committee hearing in which she said his upbeat assessment of conditions in Iraq required "the willing suspension of disbelief."

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org Executive Director Eli Pariser said of the vote in a statement, "No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can't do what most Americans want – vote to end this war."

**************************
















Friday, September 21, 2007

Video: Ontario Election Debate - Education Portion

Video: Ontario Election Debate - Education Portion




Go Leafs Go




Go Leafs Go


A couple of good hockey sites to get pumped up for the upcoming season:

http://www.mapleleafs.com (Toronto Maple Leafs Official Site)
http://www.hockeybuzz.com (Trade rumours)

http://www.spectorshockey.net/ (Trade rumours)
http://www.hockeyfights.com (Hockey fights from every NHL game)
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl (TSN)
http://www.sportsnet.ca (Sportsnet)
http://www.espn.com/nhl (ESPN)
http://
www.thescore.ca (The Score)
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey (The Toronto Star)

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Toronto/ (Toronto Sun)
http://www.hockeysfuture.com (Prospects)
http://www.hockeydb.com/ (Stat data base)

http://www.thehockeynews.com (Hockey News Magazine)
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/nhl_rumors.html (Collection of Newspaper articles about hockey from all NHL cities)
http://www.nhl.com (NHL Official)
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/ (CBC Hockey Night in Canada)


Thanks for reading,

Darryl



Rogers Coverage: Debates, Candidate Videos




Rogers Coverage: Debates, Candidate Videos

Rogers Television has done a great job covering the local candidates in York Region for the upcoming provincial election. For those interested in seeing the candidate profiles of the people running in Newmarket-Aurora; please follow the link below:

http://www.rogerstelevision.com/option.asp?src=&cat=1021&rid=17&lid=114&pag=1&gid=17128

Also the televised debates will replay on Rogers three times for Newmarket-Aurora over the next couple of weeks.

Newmarket-Aurora (Rogers Channel 10)

Saturday, September 22nd at 9:00am
Sunday, September 30th at 10:00am
Saturday, October 6th at 10:00am

Note: I will also be appearing on the Rogers election night coverage panel as the results are coming in.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl

************

Pam MacDonald
Fil Martino


About the show

Turn to Rogers Television on Wednesday, October 10th starting at 9:00pm for full coverage of provincial election results for York Region and Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Election night anchors Fil Martino and David Tsubouchi will provide up-to-the-minute results for local candidates, Pam MacDonald will be talking with community leaders and Ashaw Noorhasan will be tracking reaction to the results.

Visit www.rogerstelevision.com/elections for additional information.



FOR INFO:

Jennifer Harrison
Producer
(905) 836-7577

New Green Party of Ontario Candidate in Newmarket-Aurora


New Green Party of Ontario Candidate in Newmarket-Aurora:

According to the Green Party of Ontario website, we have a new Green candidate here by the name of John McRogers. His information is below...

Thanks for reading...

Darryl



***************

Tel: 905-836-7078

John McRogers teaches Special Education at Dr. Denison High School. Over his career, he has taken countless students no-trace camping, canoeing, biking, dog sledding and winter camping. Beyond teaching duties, he coaches fall, winter and spring sports, supports the eco-ethical group, organizes the White Ribbon campaign, plays staff-student hockey, and helps tend the memorial gardens. Last year, his science class created the “Husky” garden; thanks to xeriscaping, it flourished in our dry summer.

John has been living in Newmarket since 1991. As a family of five, the McRogers participate in as many community charity runs as their legs will allow. John has never missed one of the 27 Terry Fox Runs, and his family continues the tradition. One year they raised enough money to “draft” an athlete and send him to the provincial Special Olympics. They also sponsor a child in Bangladesh and another in Ecuador. John likes the credo: One hand to help yourself, the other to help others.

John’s energy and green ideas have spilled over into the community. He was one of the founding members of the York Region Environmental Alliance (YREA). He organizes the annual Haskett Park clean-up, and in 1995, he brought neighbours, town council and business together to create an arboretum. He was recognized with a Mayoral plaque and was nominated for a LSCA land conservation award.

John’s decision to enter the political arena stems from the natural marriage between his personal beliefs and practices, and those proposed by the Green Party. As a father, teacher and biologist, he knows why clean energy, engaged youth and healthy communities are worth standing up for.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Tory wins debates


Tory wins debates!

The Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail and Canwest all seemed to agree that Dalton McGuinty was pounded on issues related to his integrity, record of broken promises and lack of action from both the NDP and Conservatives tonight. John Tory seemed especially strong given this was his first provincial debate up against two seasoned veterans of Queens Park. Broken promises were constantly brought as the central theme on virtually every issue that came up tonight. I believe the broken promise issue will ultimately be the ballot box issue on October 10 with many swing voters looking towards the PC Party or the NDP depending on the issues they care about most. John Tory is not seen as scary and religious schools is not going to draw the type of strategic voting that we saw under Mike Harris in the past. The stronger the NDP, the better chance John Tory has to become Premier of a minority government in my opinion.

If you were watching tonight without following the campaign or having an opinion on this election; I think you would come away from this debate asking yourself if there are any promises Dalton McGuinty has kept and also if there is anything he has accomplished over the past four years when he (not Bob Rae or Mike Harris) were in office. He kept going on about faith based education; but it was obvious tonight that beyond that issue his record is a thin and his current promises no one can take seriously. He has a major image problem as is demonstrated in the polls that suggest Ontarians think John Tory would make the best premier despite his party currently behind in the polls. Dalton is a promise breaker and if faith based education dies on the campaign trail leaving only his record and ideas to talk about; I think the tide of popular opinion will begin to turn. Tonight Liberals will put their best spin on the debate by saying there were no knock out blows and that the Premier stood his ground against both leaders. "He did what he had to do in order to maintain his lead in the polls" is the rationale. Dalton McGuinty will not have to face another debate and it is questionable how many real undecided voters were actually watching. No one suggests Dalton won the debate on the issues, leadership or vision.

On taxes, justice, health care, education, environment and energy I think John Tory came off well and has the advantage going forward. Placing 100% of the gas tax into roads and public transit I think could be our strongest card if we tie it to local projects such as VIVA, GO Trains or the extension of the 404, 427 and Bradford By-Pass. He did a good job focusing on equality during the segment on religious schools and continued to emphasize broken promises and their consequences on real people. He spoke clear, had good body language, came across sincere and portrayed statesmanship that normally requires many more years of political experience. I think his positions are realistic and he seemed to project honesty and the ability to take action and get things done. He has a great chance over the closing weeks of this campaign if he can keep the focus on Dalton's record and the most important items in his platform as oppose to being on the defensive with faith based education. If he can avoid any errors, I think John Tory has the personality that is beginning to connect with voters.

Howard Hampton landed some good blows and should hold on to most of his seats and potentially pick up a few more in Toronto or Northern Ontario. On issues of poverty he was very strong and his points about the $40000 raise will resonate well with a lot of people. His attacks on broken promises and lack of attacks on Tory sent the message that both the NDP and PC Party are firm in their convictions while the Liberals under Dalton will say anything to get elected. I think he also made mention of the Toronto fiscal crisis and that could play well in the city if David Miller gets on board. A strong NDP could be the difference between a Liberal or Conservative minority government in my opinion.

The Green Party really should have been in these debates. I think since they were one of four parties running candidates in every riding; they should have had the opportunity to put their views out there. Some of their policies have already gained a lot of media attention and recent polls have shown them as high as 10%. Democracy is done a disservice by them not being included.

I was surprised that there was no mention or education video on the referendum and Mixed Member Proportional. Do most people know there is a referendum going on?

I am also going to bet that voter turnout will be lower than past elections. Right now there isn't anything emotional enough to drive voters out to the ballot box with much passion. Is it election fatigue or have people just completely lost faith in politicians?

The platforms have now all been released, advertisements aired, debates completed and local campaigns are now well underway. We are now in the home stretch and the races will become a lot more local as the political parties shift attention to the swing ridings in a push to get out the vote where efforts are crucial to the election outcome. I think right now the PC Party and John Tory have some momentum after tonight. Hopefully more attention will be placed on this race by both the media and average citizens.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl



******************

The Verdict is In: John Tory Wins

Opinion leaders judged that John Tory's performance in tonight's Leaders' Debate provided Ontarians the clearest and most compelling vision for the province.

"Between (Tory) and McGuinty, he looked more premier-like." Adam Radwanski, Globe and Mail.

"The Verdict: Advantage Tory." Dan Cook, Globe and Mail.

"People are going to talk about Mr. Tory's performance as somebody who did well tonight in this debate." John Wright, CP24. On CFRB, he added, "If you hadn't seen John Tory before, you saw someone who was very confident and competent. ...He looked more Premier like."

"Tory lands a good one complaining about split grades." John Moore, CFRB

"John Tory crushed Dalton McGuinty on crime." Toronto Sun / Canoe.ca

"John Tory performed really well and Dalton didn't perform as well." Bill Carroll, CFRB

"I can tell you that I thought John Tory did extremely well. He was the most comfortable, he got in a few zingers. I thought he was very good." Susan Eng on TVO

*********************



McGuinty's integrity focus of debate

Globe and Mail Update

Dalton McGuinty's broken promise not to raise taxes was a prime target for his rivals at a debate of Ontario's political leaders Thursday evening - a verbal battle that repeatedly turned to the charged issue of integrity.

In the end, it was difficult to declare a winner - though Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory's team laid claim to victory and Mr. McGuinty's staff said their leader "did what he needed to do … looked confident, stayed strong and held firm."

But much of the debate - which ran through a broad range of issues from crime, to poverty to the state of the economy and the environment - saw Mr. McGuinty defending his record against attacks from Mr. Tory and NDP Leader Howard Hampton. It was two-pronged assault that hit hardest when the matter of the tax increase was raised.

A flurry of accusations and recriminations was prompted when a woman from Burlington asked if the party leaders would support a law allowing voters to recall politicians who break their word.

In the end, all three said they would oppose such a law. But not before the Liberal Leader told viewers that the broken promise started with a Conservative deception.

"Mr. Tory has been travelling the province attacking my integrity and calling me a liar in everything but name," said Mr. McGuinty.

"What he refuses to do is acknowledge a painful reality. You stuck me, but more importantly your party stuck the people of Ontario with a $5.6 billion deficit," he said turning to Mr. Tory who was not a member of the legislature when the former Conservative government hid the size of the financial shortfall.

"And I was left a tough choice."

Mr. Tory responded by pointing out that Mr. McGuinty said three weeks before his first budget, and after he knew the size of the deficit that had been handed down from the previous government, that he would not raise taxes. He went on to bring in a health tax that some critics have called the biggest tax increase in Ontario history.

But "let's put that one aside for a minute. What about the coal plants not closed?," Mr. Tory asked.

"You said they would be closed. What about the kids with autism who you fought in court using taxpayers money? What about the emergency rooms where you stayed you would unclog them ... You kept so few of your promises it's destroyed credibility of politicians. All politicians."

Mr. Hampton focused on a Liberal promise to end a provincial clawback of the national child benefit from the parents of low-income children.

"Mr. McGuinty, today your government is still clawing back almost $1,500 a year from those lowest income kids and you have been doing it every year for the last four years. Were people wrong to believe your promise?" asked Mr. Hampton.

Mr. McGuinty responded that his government had done something even better than ending the clawback, by bringing in an Ontario child benefit to help poor families whether they're working or on social assistance.

But it was not just Mr. Tory and Mr. Hampton who raised the integrity issue.

When the leaders were asked to open the event with videos, rather than the customary address, Mr. McGuinty decided to face the matter head on.

"At the time of the last election, I told Ontarians that I wouldn't raise their taxes and I broke that promise. I did raise their taxes. I hated making that decision." he said in his recorded statement. "I had a really tough call to make and I knew people would be angry about that."

But because taxes were raised, Mr. McGuinty argued, there was money for more doctors, nurses and hospitals - and money to reduce medical waiting times.

"I expect to be judged on that," he said.

Six questions were submitted by members of the public, while the rest were written this week by moderator Steve Paikin, the host of TVO's current affairs program The Agenda, and members of the consortium of television networks that are hosting the debate.

Representatives from each campaign took part in a lottery to establish who would speak first, and where each leader would appear on stage. Mr. McGuinty won the centre podium, framed by Mr. Tory on the right and Mr. Hampton on the left.

There is not seen to be a wide divergence between the Conservative and Liberal platforms, or between the basic ideals of the two leaders, leading some pundits to suggest Mr. John Tory needed to distinguish himself from Mr. McGuinty.

It was widely expected that Mr. Tory would be asked about his controversial plan to extend public funding to faith-based schools with public funding, much like that extended to Roman Catholic schools. And the policy was the topic of one of the first questions asked.

"There are two only two options," said Mr. Tory. "Either fund all faiths or fund no faiths.

The Conservative Leader also said he is a strong supporter of public education.

But "I choose unity and inclusiveness and equality. I believe all children should be included in the system of public education without exception including those who today are in faith-based schools so that they can share those values," he said. "It's a matter of principle and conviction for me."

Mr. Hampton said he believes the solution is to fund public schools properly.

"If parents weren't forced to fundraise to the tune of half a billion dollars for school essentials, if 40,000 children weren't waiting for special education, if rural schools and northern schools weren't being forced to close, I think more people would be in the public education system," said Mr. Hampton.

"Let's properly fund our schools and people will move to the public school system."

On the issue of justice, Mr. McGuinty pointed out that Ontario has the lowest has the lowest rate of crime in Canada and the second-lowest violent crime rate in Canada. But he said there is more work that needs to be done - and he tried to get Mr. Tory to support his efforts to ban hand guns.

Mr. Tory replied that Mr. McGuinty there is already a virtual ban on handguns.

"Mr. McGuinty has not made a safer Ontario," said Mr. Tory. "It is under his watch that the crown attorneys have been agreeing to these bail deals, plea bargaining deals and sentencing deals that allow the criminals to thumb their nose at the rest of us and frankly thumb their nose at the justice system."

Mr. Hampton said he thought the solution is to put more money into preventing young people from turning to criminal activities.

"If you deprive young people of the chance to get ahead, if young people don't seep the opportunity in their schools it's too often they will turn to the underworld economy and that does involve crime," he said. "We've got to make these investments in our schools. We need to real store the social workers, youth outreach workers."

When the issue of traffic congestion was raised, Mr. Tory said he would turn all of the gas tax over to transit and roads while Mr. McGuinty talked about his "fantastic plan" to invest $17.5-billion in transit renewal in the greater Toronto Area.

But Mr. Hampton said if the province is serious about reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution as well as moving people efficiently, "we need to be picking up the operating costs, or 50 per cent of the operating costs, for transit systems now."

He told Mr. McGuinty that the Liberals have had four years to do this. "And I don't see it happening under what you've outlined that will take place some time maybe in the future."

With reports from Siri Agrell and Tenille Bonoguore in Toronto and the The Canadian Press


*********************

McGuinty put on defensive

THE CANADIAN PRESS

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty endured a fierce crossfire of political invective Thursday as a poised and polished John Tory and veteran New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton took turns savaging the Liberal leader for what they consider four years of broken promises.

Tory, the Progressive Conservative leader, attacked McGuinty where he’s most vulnerable — a long and contentious list of commitments the Liberals have either broken or neglected — throughout an even and measured performance that belied the fact it was his first live provincial debate.

But while McGuinty did spend much of the 90-minute debate on the defensive, he mounted an aggressive counter-offensive early, rebuking Tory for his controversial plan to give public funding to private religious schools.

Hampton, meanwhile, strained to be heard over the din of the debate’s free-for-all moments, focusing his criticism on McGuinty’s record during four years of government and his decision to approve a whopping pay increase for members of the legislature.

The debate, which can often turn the tide for an underdog or kill the political fortunes of a front runner, was the first opportunity of the campaign for the leaders to engage voters directly in hopes of winning their vote on election day Oct. 10 — still 20 days away.

Ontario is better off after four years of Liberal government, McGuinty said, urging voters to support his ongoing efforts for smaller class sizes, labour peace and expanded health care.

Frequently drawing on his childhood and experience as one of 10 children, McGuinty was quick to confront his most memorable broken promise: imposing a $2.6-billion health premium despite a promise not to raise taxes.

The premier looked into the camera and described how his father instilled in him the importance of keeping his word.

“I made a tough choice,” McGuinty said, and it certainly wasn’t designed to boost his popularity, he added. “There was a $5.6 million deficit.”

Tory has gone around the province “calling me a liar in everything but name,” McGuinty said. But he’s ignoring the fact that his party “stuck” Ontario residents with a massive deficit, he added.

Tory, however, noted the health premium was just one of many broken promises. What about closing coal plants or reinstating full support for autistic students, Tory asked.

“Your word isn’t just important,” he said, repeating the central theme of his campaign. “It’s everything.”

Voters have suffered as a result of McGuinty’s broken promises, Tory said, emphasizing a familiar refrain from his stump speeches. Conservatives would attack urban crime, use taxpayer dollars more wisely and expand the role of private health clinics within the public system, he said.

But it was over his pledge to publicly finance private religious schools — by far the most talked-about pledge of the campaign — where Tory found himself on the defensive.

The lights had barely gone up on the debate when Tory found himself defending the idea, saying including children of all faiths under the public-funding umbrella is the right thing to do. McGuinty, he suggested, is trying to exclude them.

“I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to include those children,” Tory said to McGuinty. “I want to include those students.”

They are included already — in the public school system, McGuinty countered.

Hampton, meanwhile, blamed the religious-schools debate for taking attention away from the chronic underfunding of public schools. A veteran debater, Hampton saved his harshest words for McGuinty and appealed to voters to support his plan to roll back and freeze tuition, increase the minimum wage, unclog emergency rooms and fight global warming.

Hampton accused McGuinty of offering little more than excuses for his broken promises and of letting working families down. “We deserve better.”

Liberal strategists said McGuinty was focused more on talking directly to viewers rather than fending off attacks from all sides. They accused both Tory and Hampton of being overly negative; all sides were declaring victory moments after the cameras were switched off.

“It was a great chance to speak directly to Ontarians,” McGuinty said afterwards. “Voters are just beginning to tune in.”

Conservatives painted their man as the only leader who looked like a premier, despite his inexperience with live televised debates. Voters are now left with a clear choice, Tory said.

“Mr. McGuinty made signature promises to the voters which he didn’t keep. Mr McGuinty misled the voters, which he continues to do,” Tory said afterwards.

“I think voters will judge all his current election promises in that context.”

McGuinty, meanwhile, said Tory’s vision of an economy and a society prospering under tax and spending cuts will ring bells with voters who recall the recent Conservative years under Mike Harris.

“I think that, by and large, they are embracing the same kinds of policies,” he said.

“What they’re saying is, `Folks, we can have it all: we can cut your taxes, improve your services and we can balance the budget.’ That’s what the last guy said and we wound up with a $5.6 billion deficit.”

For his part, Hampton tried to discourage strategic voting for the Liberals by playing down the threat of a Conservative government.

“I may disagree with (Tory) fundamentally on all kinds of issues, but he’s not a scary guy, so let’s drop that,” Hampton said.

“I simply wanted people to know about Mr. McGuinty’s record and Mr. McGuinty continues to say anything, promise anything to get votes.”

All three leaders began the debate with a video statement, which turned out to be little more than a set of campaign ads. McGuinty opted to confront his weakest flank: his decision to impose the health premium.

“I hated making that decision,” McGuinty said to the camera. ``I got (into government) and discovered there was no money. I had a really tough call to make. I knew people would be angry but I still think it was the right call to make.”

Tory chose to feature the mother of an autistic child who accused McGuinty of breaking his promise to her and other families by not fully funding autism support in schools. He repeated a theme of his campaign so far — that broken promises have consequences.

“We can do better than this,” he said.

Hampton used a series of testimonials from people who have lost manufacturing jobs, students who want a break on tuition and workers who want an increase in the minimum wage. Hampton himself didn’t even appear in the video.

The three leaders were greeted with a mixture of supporters and protesters outside the downtown Toronto television studio heading into the debate. Some protesters were trying to draw attention to the lack of support for autism students, others protesting plans to expand nuclear power.

Both Tory and Hampton braved the noisy throng but McGuinty chose to enter the building through a side door.

*


*********************






Ontario Provincial Leaders Debate Tonight

More to come following the debate tonight at 6:30pm following the debate...

Thanks for reading...

Darryl

************************

Ontario leaders face off in debate tonight

Globe and Mail Update

It is a chance for the leaders to turn the campaign decisively in their favour, or make a misstep that will be remembered as the moment the race was lost.

Leaders of Ontario's three mainstream parties will participate Thursday evening in the only televised debate of the campaign. Moderated by TVO journalist Steve Paikin, they will spend 90 minutes trying to appeal to voters and undercut their opponents.

There is much riding on the event for Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory – a point that was brought home to him before he even got out of bed in the morning.

“It is kind of an out-of-body experience,” Mr. Tory told reporters before a round of canvassing in his Don Valley West riding. “My radio comes on and I hear the news and it says, ‘This is going to be the most important day of John Tory's life.' And I am lying there kind of thinking ‘I think they are talking about me.'”

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty, NDP Leader Howard Hampton and Mr. Tory will face off on television starting at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Tory is the only one of the three who has had no previous experience with this sort of verbal sparring contest at the provincial level.

As incumbent, Mr. McGuinty was expecting a verbal beating.

"I'm expecting it to be a bit tough," he said. "But I hope to return a few volleys."

He hinted at the tack he will take with an assault earlier Thursday on Mr. Tory, calling him an ideologue who wants to relegate the public sector to second place.

“It seems to me that every time there's a choice between the public interest and private-sector interests, Mr. Tory votes for and with the private sector,” Mr. McGuinty told reporters. “I'm talking about being steeped in an old conservative ideology which makes you see private interests as a first resort.”

Mr. Hampton was gearing up to pound Mr. McGuinty over his government's performance, saying he needs to be held accountable for broken promises.

"Dalton McGuinty's government has a record, and it's not a good record," Mr. Hampton said during a campaign stop this week. "His government promised to choose change four years ago, and as you go round Ontario, you find many people are still wondering: 'Where is the change?' "

Mr. Hampton said he expects Mr. McGuinty to focus on the future, casting his gaze "over the horizon" to avoid discussing his record. And commentators – including those inside Mr. McGuinty's own campaign – say this is exactly the strategy he needs to employ to emerge from the debate victorious.

"They're going to take every opportunity to attack him, and he's going to take every opportunity to talk about education, and talk about health care," a Liberal campaign adviser said. "We're taking it as an opportunity to speak directly to voters."

Paul Nesbitt-Larking, chair of the political science department at Huron University College at the University of Western Ontario, said Mr. McGuinty has the advantage as an incumbent.

"It looks as though there is a little bit of daylight between the Liberals and Conservatives, so it really is Mr. McGuinty's to lose," he said. "And he has a lot more experience at this."

Six questions to be put to the leaders have been submitted by members of the public, while the rest were written this week by Mr. Paikin and members of the consortium of television networks that are hosting the debate.

Representatives from each campaign took part in a lottery to establish who would speak first, and where each leader would appear on stage. Mr. McGuinty won the centre podium, framed by Mr. Tory on the right and Mr. Hampton on the left.

"He's really got the advantage in terms of being able to look straight at the camera," Mr. Nesbitt-Larking said. "He can gesture to left and right and say 'Here I am in the middle.' Symbolically, he couldn't have a better position."

There is not seen to be a wide divergence between the Conservative and Liberal platforms, or between the basic ideals of the two leaders, leading some pundits to suggest Mr. Tory needs to distinguish himself from Mr. McGuinty. But he has not participated before in such a debate.

“Some of the debates I did when I was running for [Toronto] mayor were more like question and answer sessions, because there were a lot more candidates on the stage so there was less opportunity for real interaction,” Mr. Tory said.

“But I'm looking forward to having a chance to discuss the issues with my two competitors, and I hope it will be good for the people to watch and learn more about the election. I hope people will see me as what I am, which is a person who has a job to do holding [Mr. McGuinty] to account, but also as a party leader putting forth ideas.”

The Conservative Leader may be able to score points by raising the issues of agriculture and crime, Mr. Nesbitt-Larking said, helping build momentum for his party in 905 and rural ridings. Mr. Tory may also encourage the NDP Leader in his attacks against Mr. McGuinty, as increased support for Mr. Hampton will likely result in a net loss to the Liberals.

Writing in Thursday's Globe and Mail, David Herle noted that the stakes are high and that, in many Ontario elections, the debate has proved to be a decisive moment.

Mr. Herle, a political consultant, strategist and principal of the Gandalf Group, a polling and market-research firm, believes that Mr. Tory needs to get past faith-based schools, reassure voters that he will run the province much the way Mr. McGuinty does and focus on leadership.

Mr. McGuinty needs to harness the current high levels of satisfaction with his government and motivate the strategic vote by raising fears of change, he said, and Mr. Hampton needs to claim some territory. He will likely take a page from Jack Layton's book and lump the Liberals and PCs together so that those centre left strategic voters stay in his corner.

With a report from The Canadian Press

Canadian Dollar Reaches Par with US Dollar


Canadian Dollar Reaches Par with US Dollar

Not good news for our manufacturing sector, exports or tourism to Canada; but it is a big event as for the first time in over 30 years the Canadian dollar and the American dollar are equal. Canada's dollar will likely continue to increase in value against the greenback with some experts predicting $1.05 by the end of the month. The increase in the Canadian dollar seems to be a combination of the price of per barrel of oil, the pending US recession and continuous decline in the American currency. Afghanistan and the environment have been talked about in the past as the number one ballot issue in the next federal election. The thinking now is that the economy is going to be the top of mind issue by the time voters get to the polls. Keep following our dollar closely; this will have a huge impact close to home in Ontario.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl

*****************

Canadian dollar hits parity with greenback

Updated Thu. Sep. 20 2007 1:40 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Canadian dollar reached parity Thursday morning with the U.S. currency for the first time in nearly 31 years.

The loonie was supported by lofty commodity prices, a strong domestic economy and concerns about a U.S. economic slowdown.

At 10:58 a.m. EDT, the loonie rose as high as US$1.0004 before backing off to 99.86 cents US -- up 1.36 cents US from Wednesday.

Analysts say what helped pushed the Canadian dollar over the top was some new trade data from Statistics Canada, which reported the economy was surprisingly strong in July.

The chief economist at the TD Bank Financial Group says there are clear winners and losers from an economic perspective. But on balance, the impact is negative for the Canadian economy, said Craig Alexander.

"The dominant negative impact comes in terms of the export sector. And exports are traded basically at about 40 per cent of the Canadian economy, so a rising Canadian dollar makes our exports less competitive, creates a weaker profile for manufacturing shipments, and it tends to lead to a slower pace of economic growth," he told CTV Newsnet.

The high dollar means domestic manufacturers have to try to sell goods south of the border at a discount or have been priced out of U.S. markets.

Alexander says the strong loonie also makes life difficult for the tourism and hospitality sectors. On the other hand, it's a positive for importers, wholesalers and consumers.

The loonie, which has been gaining ground on its American counterpart in recent years, rose sharply on Tuesday -- its highest closing price since January 1977 -- after the U.S. Federal Reserve cut U.S. interest rates more than expected.

The Canadian currency has also been helped by increased prices in the energy sector. Crude oil prices have hit new highs and are selling about US$80 a barrel.

The Canadian dollar was last at the US$1 mark on November 25, 1976, when Pierre Trudeau was prime minister and Rene Levesque had just become Quebec's premier. The Canadian dollar's all-time high against the U.S. dollar occurred in 1957.

That's when it closed at $1.06 U.S. It reached a low of 62 cents US in 2002.

Weak U.S. greenback

The American dollar's weakness was evident across most currencies Thursday as it slumped versus the euro, the British pound, the yen and Swiss franc.

And Alexander warns it's important to keep in mind that the exchange rate we watch so closely is the value of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. currency.

"In recent years what we've been getting is a rise in the loonie on a strong economy, and commodity prices -- which are domestic fundamentals," he told Newsnet. "But it's also a reflection of weakness in the U.S. dollar, which has been falling against most major currencies.

"And although the Canadian dollar has outperformed the euro and many other currencies in the last year, the reality is most currencies have been going up against the U.S. dollar."

Bush: Fundamentals are 'strong'

While the U.S. greenback continues to tank against the Canadian dollar and the euro, questions are being asked about the health of the American economy.

President George Bush pushed aside those concerns on Thursday, telling a news conference the U.S. economy is healthy, despite this rough patch.

"I say that the fundamentals of our nation's economy are strong. Inflation's down, job markets are steady and strong. The national unemployment rate is 4.6 per cent. Corporate profits appear to be strong, exports are up."

He added, however, there is no question that these are "unsettling times" for the housing market."

Commenting on the mortgage crisis in the U.S., Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said it has created "significant market stress." He offered assurances that regulators would take steps to curb any related fallout.

"Global financial losses have far exceeded even the most pessimistic estimates of the credit losses on these loans," he said in remarks prepared for presentation to the House of Representatives' financial services committee.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson signalled that the administration would consider allowing big mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to temporarily buy, bundle and sell as securities any loans exceeding US$417,000.

The idea is portrayed as a way to inject liquidity into the stretched mortgage market.

With a report from CTV's David Akin and files from The Canadian Press and The Associated Press


*************


Loonie hits parity
FILE PHOTO
The last time the loonie and greenback were at parity was in November 1976, when Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister and just as Jimmy Carter was elected as the 39th U.S. president. In this photo, Trudeau presents a book to Carter at the White House in February, 1977, shortly after Carter took office.
Email Story

In 1976, when the dollar was last at par...

Pierre Trudeau was prime minister and Bill Davis was premier of Ontario.

Gerald Ford was president of the United States. Jimmy Carter was elected president in November, assuming power in 1977.

The CN Tower opened in Toronto.

The Canadian parliament voted to abolish the death penalty.

The median household income in the U.S. was $12,686, unemployment was at 7.7 per cent and the price of a first-class stamp was 13 cents.

The 1976 Olympics were held in Montreal. Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl, the Cincinnati Reds won the World Series and the Montreal Canadiens won the Stanley Cup. Chris Evert won the Wimbledon ladies’ championship and Bjorn Borg won the men's title.

Toronto Maple Leafs' Darryl Sittler set a record by scoring 10 points in one game.

In 1976, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest won the Oscar as Best Picture and Love Will Keep Us Together by Captain and Tennille won the Grammy as record of the year.

In world events, Israeli commandos attacked Uganda's Entebee Airport and freed 103 hostages held by pro-Palestinian hijackers of an Air France plane. One Israeli and several Ugandans were killed in the raid.

Compiled by Curtis Rush

Sep 20, 2007 01:44 PM



THE CANADIAN PRESS

Boosted by high commodity prices and a weakening U.S. dollar, the loonie reached parity with the greenback Thursday for the first time in nearly 31 years, promising to boost the energy and import sectors and give consumers cheaper vacations but spelling more trouble for Canada’s industrial heartland.

The loonie, which has been gaining on its American counterpart since bottoming out below 62 cents in early 2002, has recently been on a spectacular run, up from 95 cents at the start of September and from under 90 cents last spring.

Soaring demand for Canadian commodities, ranging from oil and wheat to coal, potash, nickel and zinc — have helped propel the currency, while a weakening American economy has dragged down the greenback, the world’s most widely held and traded currency.

At 10:58 a.m., the loonie hit $1.0004, and later traded at 99.86 cents US, up 1.36 cents U.S. from Wednesday.

The last time the dollar was at par with the greenback was Nov. 25, 1976, when Pierre Trudeau was prime minister and René Lévesque had just become premier of Quebec. That high point for the currency signalled the beginning of a long slide for the loonie, as national unity concerns and mounting worries about Canada’s worsening government finances over the next decade or so scared away foreign buyers of the currency.

The loonie began to recover a bit after the former Liberal government began tackling the deficit, but has soared in recent years because of massive global demand for Canadian resources and the solid growth in the economy, especially in the oil-rich West.

“It really represents a very dramatic reversal of fortune from what would have happened 10 years ago when our resource economy made us look rust belt compared to the technological dynamo of the U.S. economy,” said CIBC economist Jeff Rubin.

The currency had advanced 1.38 cents Tuesday after the U.S. Federal Reserve cut short-term interest rates by half a percentage point, undercutting the attractiveness of the American currency. The loonie was also boosted as crude oil hit new highs solidly above $80 (U.S.) a barrel.

“It’s been a perfect environment for the Canadian dollar to strengthen,” said Craig Alexander, deputy chief economist at TD Economics.

“You’re getting a stronger Canadian dollar on positive economic news out of Canada, rising commodity prices, improving interest rates spreads and concerns about the U.S. dollar.”

Most forecasters weren’t anticipating the loonie to hit parity with the U.S. greenback at all — much less so soon and so quickly.

The No. 1 reason behind the sudden surge, Alexander said, “is that the U.S. Federal Reserve surprised financial markets by cutting interest rates by half a point.”

“That makes the Canadian dollar look more attractive to international investors because it means interest rates in Canada are less below those in the United States.”

The high dollar may make U.S.-made goods cheaper to buy in Canada and is a boon to Canadians travelling in the United States, especially cross-border shoppers and those looking to book winter vacations to Florida or Arizona. Those trips are suddenly much cheaper than they were a month ago.

But the high loonie will continue to put pressure on domestic manufacturers, who have to try to sell goods south of the border at a discount or have been priced out of U.S. markets.

Manufacturers such as lumber exporters, which have not had some insulation from commodity prices, and automakers will be particularly hard-hit, as the rising Canadian dollar makes exports less competitive at the same time that the shrinking U.S. housing market is making demand for housing weak.

Tourism in Canada could also be affected, as travel to Canada becomes more expensive to Americans — a drop that will likely ripple through the hospitality industry.

Rubin estimates that the manufacturing sector could see as many as 100,000 more jobs shed over the next 12 or 15 months, calling it the “obvious” loser of the rising loonie.

“It is getting crushed, no doubt about it, we lost a quarter million manufacturing jobs,” he said.

But, he added, “the pain and suffering in the manufacturing sector is nowhere evident when you look at the broad economic numbers.”

While the manufacturing sector has lost 289,000 jobs since late 2002, the economy has created more than one million jobs in resources, construction, services, health care, education and financial industries, leaving the national jobless rate at 30-year lows.

“Even in the province of Ontario, which is after all, the country’s manufacturing heartland, the unemployment rate is at a 20-year low ... the energy sector is basically taking over our balance of payments.”

On the other side of that, importers will win big as the costs of bringing goods into Canada gets cheaper, as will whole sellers — the “middle men” in the economy.

It could also benefit consumers, who will see the purchasing power of their money rise.

But, Alexander warns, the surging loonie hasn’t yet trickled down to consumers.

“It is showing up in some areas like gasoline prices (and) retail areas like clothing and footwear, but broadly speaking, we haven’t seen a significant pass-through yet,” he said.

“Canadians that decide to do some cross-border shopping are benefiting, the increasing popularity of the Internet makes it possible for Canadian to buy things from vendors abroad, and to that extent they can benefit 100 per cent from the appreciation of the Canadian dollar.”

American-dollar weakness was also evident across most currencies Thursday as the greenback slumped versus the euro, the British pound, the yen and Swiss franc.

It dropped to record lows Thursday against the euro, which rose above the $1.40 (U.S.) level, the highest value for the European currency since its inception in 1999.

The spot gold price, meanwhile, topped $730 (U.S.) an ounce, trading at $742.60 (U.S.), up $13.10 (U.S.) on the day.

Some foreign exchange analysts in the U.S. have predicted the Canadian dollar could reach as high as $1.05 (U.S.) if weakness in the American economy persists.

Meanwhile on the markets, Toronto's S&P/TSX composite index was down 83.86 points to 13,855.92 late this morning.

The TSX energy sector was down 1.4 per cent, after falling three per cent yesterday, as investors took in a report calling for higher royalties to be paid by oil and gas companies in Alberta.

"Whenever you inject any type of uncertainty into a sector or into stocks, the first knee-jerk reaction of course is to sell and that's what you've seen," said Watson.

"This sector will probably be somewhat volatile leading up to the Alberta government's actual decision coming up in mid-October."

At the same time, the crude oil price moved further into record territory. The October crude contract in New York rose 19 cents to $82.12 (U.S.) a barrel.

Shares in UTS Energy Corp. (TSX: UTS) were up 16 cents, or 2.75 per cent, to $5.62 (Canadian) after falling almost 12 per cent yesterday.

UTS has sold a third of its stake in the Fort Hills oilsands project in northern Alberta to partners Petro-Canada (TSX: PCA) and Teck Cominco Ltd. (TSX: TCK.B) for $750 million, calling its new share "an appropriate and meaningful level of participation." UTS, which had a 30 per cent interest in the project, sold five per cent each to Teck and Petro-Canada.

The move means Petro-Canada now owns 60 per cent, leaving both UTS and Teck with a 20 per cent piece.

Elsewhere in the energy sector, EnCana Corp. (TSX: ECA) slipped $1.17 to $62.20 and Canadian Natural Resources moved down 78 cents to $74.25.

The TSX Venture Exchange gained 26.87 points to 2,785.32.

On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrials moved down 5.69 points to 13,809.87 after gaining just over 400 points in the last two sessions in the wake of the Fed's decision to lower its key interest rate by half a point to limit damage from the contracting U.S. housing sector.

The Nasdaq composite index declined 1.29 points to 2,665.19 and the S&P 500 index was down 3.09 points to 1,525.94.

In remarks prepared for presentation to the House of Representatives' financial services committee, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said the credit crisis has created "significant market stress" and offered fresh assurances that regulators would take steps to curb fallout related to the mortgage mess.

"Global financial losses have far exceeded even the most pessimistic estimates of the credit losses on these loans," the Fed chairman said.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, also scheduled to appear at the hearing, signalled that the administration would consider allowing the big mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to temporarily buy, bundle and sell as securities any loans exceeding $417,000 (U.S.).

The idea, which represents a policy change for the administration, is portrayed as a way to inject liquidity into the stretched mortgage market.

Investors also took in a mixed earnings picture from the U.S. financial sector.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. today reported quarterly profit rose to $2.85 billion, compared with $1.55 billion a year earlier. Revenue soared 63 per cent to $12.33 billion.

It said it took $1.71 billion in credit losses in the quarter – including loans extended for leveraged buyouts.

Things weren't quite so rosy at rival Bear Stearns.

Its profit plunged 62 per cent in the third quarter, as turbulence in the debt market rocked the investment bank's credit portfolio.

Elsewhere on the TSX, the gold sector was the biggest advancer, up 2.2 per cent with the December bullion contract up $13.30 to $742.80.

Yamana Gold Inc. (TSX: YRI) is hiking the cash portion of its takeover bid for Meridian Gold (TSX: MNG) by 63 per cent, or $253 million (Canadian), and relaxing other conditions. Yamana shares were up 33 cents to $12.98 and Meridian shares ran ahead $2.55 to $35.30.

The base metals sector moved up 1.1 per cent. Teck Cominco Ltd. (TSX: TCK.B) advanced $1.19 to $47.83.

The information technology and telecom sectors were both down 0.8 per cent.

In other news:

– Shares in Cott Corp. (TSX: BCB), the world's largest retailer-brand soft drink company, fell $1.88 or 18.25 per cent to $8.42 after it lowered its 2007 earnings forecast and predicting flat revenue growth in "one of the most challenging years in Cott's history."

– Utility company Boralex Power Income Fund (TSX: BPT.UN) says its special committee has ended its sale process and it's blaming a slump in financial markets. Its units dipped 31 cents to $9.21.

Overseas, London's FTSE index fell 38.9 points to 6,421.1.

Frankfurt's DAX 30 was off 15.4 points to 7,735.44 and the Paris CAC 40 declined 38.36 points to 5,692.46.

In Asia, Japan's Nikkei index rose 0.2 per cent and Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index rose 0.57 per cent.

Mulroney and Tory Connection? Libs get desparate with attack ads.

Mulroney and Tory Connection? Libs get desparate with attack ads.

I would write a whole column on Brian Mulroney and some of the great things I believe he did for the country such as NAFTA, the GST (the real reason Liberals balanced the budgets for the last decade) and an attempt to formally bring Quebec into the constitution through Meech Lake. He was also in my opinion, one of the biggest activists for ending apartheid in South Africa. Having said that, I am sure there are several people inside and outside the Conservative Party who remember some not so pleasant things about Brian Mulroney.

Having said all that, when Liberals have to defend a record of broken promises, dithering, slush funds for friends and inaction on every major issue; this is the type of ad you have to resort to in order to go negative against the PC Party. Not sure if this is going to cost Tory many votes; however this is the latest Liberal nonsense going around You Tube.



There is also

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

CONSERVATIVES FOR MMP - JANET ECKER (PC)





CONSERVATIVES FOR MMP:



http://conservativesformmp.blogspot.com/

Janet Ecker : Choose Electoral Reform in this Fall's Referendum

This piece is from former Ontario Progressive Conservative cabinet minister, Janet Ecker, who was joined by Liberal Elinor Caplan and New Democrat, Marilyn Churley.

Women in politics
Globe and Mail
July 26, 2007
By Equal Voice Members and former Ontario Ministers:
JANET ECKER (PC)
ELINOR CAPLAN (Liberal)
MARILYN CHURLEY (NDP)


Toronto -- We can say from our own considerable experience that more women would be elected to the Legislature if some of the barriers to their participation were removed (Ontario Parties Chip Away at Old Boys' Club - July 24). That would mean fair, transparent nominations; strict spending limits to remove the financial impediment that hampers many women; and electoral reform to get more women nominated.

In the present system, nominations are the business of local riding associations, which - 80 per cent of the time - decide a male candidate is preferable. This spring, the Ontario Citizen's Assembly recommended adding to the Legislature a minority of seats, which would be elected by proportional representation.

For these seats, parties would publicize "lists" of candidates chosen to redress imbalances in current representation, i.e. more women, minorities and first-nations candidates. This system is used successfully in many countries and enjoys high voter satisfaction. It also gets results, with far more women in politics than we have ever achieved with the first-past-the-post system in Ontario.

Queen's Park has been a mostly male club too long: We urge voters to chose electoral reform in this fall's referendum.

Pope 'refused to meet with Rice'

Pope 'refused to meet with Rice'

By David Willey
BBC News, Rome

Pope Benedict XVI

The Pope was on holiday at Castelgandolfo near Rome

Pope Benedict XVI refused a recent request by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss the Middle East and Iraq, Vatican sources say.

The Pope refused a request for an audience during the August holidays.

Senior Vatican sources told the BBC the Pope does not normally receive politicians on his annual holiday at the Castelgandolfo residence near Rome.

But one leading Italian newspaper said it was an evident snub by the Vatican towards the Bush administration.

Christian rights

There are at least two reasons why Pope Benedict may have decided peremptorily against a private meeting with Ms Rice.

First, it was Ms Rice who just before the outbreak of the Iraq war in March 2003 made it clear to a special papal envoy sent from Rome, Cardinal Pio Laghi, that the Bush administration was not interested in the views of the late Pope on the immorality of launching its planned military offensive.

Secondly, the US has responded in a manner considered unacceptable at the Vatican to the protection of the rights of Iraqi Christians under the new Iraqi constitution.

The Bush administration has told the Vatican that as coalition forces have not succeeded in securing the whole territory of Iraq, they are unable to protect non-Muslims.

Instead of meeting the Pope, Ms Rice had to make do with a telephone conversation with the Vatican's number two, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who was visiting the US during August on other business.

Darryl on TV Tonight - Topic: Provincial Election/Municipalities



Darryl on TV Tonight - Topic: Provincial Election/Municipalities

I am looking forward to another appearance on Insights tonight at 9pm with Pam MacDonald. The show is on Rogers Community Television in York Region (Newmarket Channel 10) and starts at 9pm. The topic will be the provincial election with a specific focus on municipalities and the issues of York Region/Toronto with regards to the provincial election. There is a good panel lined up so it should be a good show.

Thank you for watching,

Darryl

*************



Today at:

9:00 PM
Live phone in show that takes a deeper look into politics and news events that effect the residents of York Region. Tonights topic: Are voters concerned about municipal issues in this provincial election?



Pam MacDonald



About the show

Now on two times a week, Insights is a live, interactive program that profiles issues and events from across York Region.

Host Pam MacDonald takes your calls live and let's you have your say every Monday and Wednesday at 9:00 pm.

Is there an issue you'd like to see profiled on Insights? Call us at 905-836-7196 or e-mail insightsrci.rogers.com



FOR INFO:

Steve Walsh
Producer
(905) 836-7196

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Why I am voting Frank Klees and PC on October 10


Why I am voting Frank Klees and John Tory on October 10

"If you dont' get involved in the political process, you are destined to be governed by those who do" -Frank Klees

On October 10, 2007 Ontario will vote in a general election and will also vote on changing our electoral system through a referendum on Mixed Member Proportional. In my next post, I will write about why I am supporting democratic reform and voting in favour of MMP.

Newmarket-Aurora has been very lucky in all fronts of government over the past few years. We are a swing riding that can go either way between Liberal and Conservative depending on the local candidate and issues of the day. We have seen two leadership campaigns with Belinda Stronach (federal Conservatives) and Frank Klees (provincial Conservative) where the contenders are from our riding. We are in the crucial 905 GTA belt that will inevitably make the difference between a minority and majority government at both the federal and provincial level. In Newmarket we have a strong municipal government that is community minded, ahead of the curve on transportation, environment and recreation policy. We are fortunate to have a hospital in our town with a cancer centre under development. For the most part, life is good in our riding.

“If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.”


Since 1995, Frank Klees has represented York Region and has played a major role in fighting for issues such as VIVA Transit, Highway 404/427 Extension and Bradford By-Pass,
Oak Ridges Marine, Increased Go Trains, Southlake Hospital, and other important issues that have an impact on real people's day to day education, health, environment, gridlock and funding concerns here. Frank Klees is also a big player at Queens Park and a life long Conservative who is not afraid to speak frankly. Klees is a guarantee that we will not have a silent backbench MPP representing our community in Toronto. Even in opposition, Frank has been successful in getting private members bills such as the ones on organ donation, street racing and honoring veterans through a license plate with a poppy on the left side through the house. With my mom working as an educational assistant and my uncle well taken care of by Community Living in Windsor; I especially appreciation Frank's commitment to students with special needs such as Autism. He believes in individual MPP activism and has voted against his party in the past and that is something I respect. Frank has been a leadership contender running against current leader John Tory and current federal finance minister Jim Flaherty. He has also held cabinet positions with portfolios in transportation, tourism, whip and deputy house leader. He has also been a citizenship and immigration critic as well as education critic. He has the required experience and knowing him personally I see first hand how he puts service before self. He is a man of faith, principle, ethics and integrity and a firm believer in multiculturalism and tolerance as demonstrated through his personal record. Klees had a successful business career before entering politics including at one time being a player agent for both the CFL and the NFL. With Frank Klees there is no doubt that Newmarket-Aurora would get a high profile MPP who would be a strong voice for Newmarket-Aurora.

I also very much believe in John Tory and his policies. Liberal attempts to fear monger with faith based education and comparisons to Mike Harris are simply desperation attempts to mask a record of broken promises, slush funds, budget deficits and lack of action on issues such as Caledonia, the environment, transportation, health care and the loss of manufacturing jobs in the province. John Tory is a moderate and his record and speeches clearly indicate that. Tory has also promised to reverse the biggest tax hike in the provinces history by repealing the "health" premium that does not go 100% into health care. We will also see health care funding finally begin to keep up with growth and a focus on tangible priorities such as making sure everyone in Ontario has access to a family doctor and also reduced waiting times for everyone in Ontario.

John Tory will redirect 100% of the gas tax to roads and transit resulting in more Go Trains from Newmarket-Aurora to union station, the 404 Extension and expansion to VIVA. Gridlock is probably the number one issue in York Region as everyone tries to commute into the city or throughout the area.

John Tory is also a friend of the education system. He will not go out of his way to cause conflicts and will hopefully repair the strained relationship our party has with teachers such as my parents. In the platform there is a promise to increase funding $800 million dollars to the public system in his first year and $2.5 billion over his first term. This money is on top of the $500 million that it will cost to bring fairness to our education through our faith based schools plan. If I had my way, my choice would be to merge the Catholic system into the public system and have one top quality education system for everyone in Ontario. Unfortunately the BNA Act and the requirement for a change to Canada's Constitution makes that option politically unrealistic. As a result, I believe it is better to offer Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian and other faiths the same rights that Catholics (such as myself) currently enjoy. This plan will not result in funds being taken out of the public system, does not include tax breaks to wealthy private schools and is already in place in several other provinces. To qualify for funding, all religious schools would be forced to follow a strict curriculum with certified teachers.

I also appreciation John Tory's willingness to deal with the environment by committing to firm green house gas emissions targets, a reduction in air and water pollution, and a realistic solution to our energy shortage by having an honest discussion on nuclear power. John Tory believes in democratic reform and has talked about giving individual MPPs more power. Tory did a great job during the mayor campaign and in my opinion David Miller's performance in recent months only highlights the mistake Toronto made in not electing this man the first time. I think Tory has the best plan for both urban and rural municipalities in this province. Randy Hillier will make sure Northern, rural and agricultural issues will not be ignored. The PC Party is also the most trusted option for controlling spending, getting tough on crime (including animal abuse), reducing taxes and avoiding ethical scandals. I also think John Tory would have a better relationship with Stephen Harper at the federal level allowing for increased cooperation between the provincial and federal governments. As leader, John Tory is familiar with urban issues, wants the party to be inclusive to all Ontarians, and has worked on various community service projects throughout his life. John Tory is not a life long politician and has enjoyed a distinguished career as CEO of Rogers and also Commissioner of the CFL. In this election leadership matters, and it is clear that hands down John Tory is the best all around leader of the four major parties.

Dalton McGuinty broke his promise not to raise taxes in his very first budget only 8 months after being elected. The average Ontarian is paying an extra $2000 per year since the Fiberals were elected. He promised to close down the coal fire plants, stop growth on the Oak Ridges Marine, roll back 407 tolls, balance the budget, raise the minimum wage, cap hydro rates, cap class sizes and govern with honesty and integrity. He failed on all of those initiatives. Scandals such as Lottogate and various slush funds and grants are only a further slap in the face to taxpayers and voters. Beyond that, his accomplishments are few and far between. Did he deserve that $40,000 raise? I believe he should be fired! On October 10, vote for change and accountability...vote for John Tory. If you are from Newmarket or Aurora, you get the additional bonus of getting to vote for Frank Klees as well.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl

************

A Message From Frank

Thank you for your interest in my candidacy to represent Newmarket and Aurora as your MPP in the next Ontario Government.

My reasons for committing myself to public service have remained constant since I was first elected in 1995. I believed that my community and business experience had prepared me for the job. I wanted to do my part to make our community and our province a better place to live and work and I had the support and encouragement of my family and friends to pursue that calling. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to serve my community as MPP and the province as a Cabinet Minister.

In carrying out my responsibilities, I have been guided by the principles and values instilled in me from my parents who possessed a strong faith and equally strong work ethic. Values such as respect for authority, the importance of family and community, and self-reliance also form the foundation of the Ontario PC Party. Therefore it was a natural choice for me when faced with a decision concerning political party affiliation.


I invite you to join with me in bringing these values to the conduct of government in Ontario, because if you don't get involved in the political process, you are destined to be governed by those who do.

****************

MESSAGE FROM JOHN TORY

In thousands of conversations in communities across Ontario, I’ve found that people keep talking about three things they want from their government: trust, competence and fairness.

Ontarians are fair-minded, big-hearted people. They don’t expect perfection from their politicians. But they’re disappointed when they don’t get these basic things.

I believe you earn trust by being straight with people – and by keeping your word. You demonstrate competence through good management and good planning. And you show fairness in both how well you listen – and how well you lead.

It’s time for a government that’s really and truly accountable – that tells the truth about what it taxes and spends, and operates by clear, transparent rules.

It’s time for streets that are safer – through better enforcement of crime and investments in vulnerable communities.

It’s time for a health care system that’s less about how much we spend and more about the outcomes we achieve for people.

It’s time for fairness for those whose interests the government has neglected or ignored – such as property taxpayers, farmers, and residents of rural, remote and Northern communities.

It’s time for firm, ambitious environmental targets. For an energy supply that’s cleaner, greener and more secure. And for an Ontario in which opportunity and prosperity are attainable for all.

It’s a time for leadership today – for a better Ontario tomorrow.

I believe we can achieve all these things, because I believe in Ontario and its people. And I will lead a government that will restore trust and competence to public life.

I won’t pretend that I have all the answers, and I won’t make promises I can’t keep. But I will always talk straight. I will keep my word. I will be accountable to the people I serve. And I will plan carefully to make Ontario better for our children.

That’s the kind of leadership I’ll bring to Ontario.

Sincerely,

John Tory MPP
Leader of the Ontario PC Party and
Leader of the Official Opposition

China objects to Harper meeting with Dalai Lama


China objects to Harper meeting with Dalai Lama

Updated Tue. Sep. 18 2007 8:21 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to raise the ire of Chinese officials next month when he meets with the Dalai Lama.

The Globe and Mail reported Tuesday that Harper plans to meet the Buddhist leader and Tibetan exile at a government site, a move that would go further than a non-political meeting held by former prime minister Paul Martin with the Dalai Lama in 2004.

The Chinese government has already warned foreign officials that they are weary of meetings with the exiled leader at certain government venues. In a statement sent to The Globe, a Chinese official said, "We are against the provision of venues by foreign countries to the Dalai Lama's secessionist activities and also against foreign dignitaries meeting with him."

The Chinese -- who have run a behind-the-scenes campaign to prevent a formal meeting between the Tibetan leader and the prime minister -- claim that the Dalai Lama is not a mere religious figure. Instead, they argue that he is a political figure who aims to split their country apart. The Dalai Lama, who was forced out of Tibet in 1959, runs a government-in-exile from India.

The Harper government has had a tense relationship with China during its tenure primarily due to the Conservative government's concerns about that country's human rights record. Leaders of Tibet's independence movement in Canada say they hope that the expected meeting between Harper and the Dalai Lama will address the need for serious negotiations about Tibet's relationship with China.

Communists asserted control over Tibet, which is located between India and China in the Himalayan Mountains, in 1950. An independence movement run from within and outside of the country has existed ever since.

In 2004, Martin became the first Canadian leader to meet with the Dalai Lama. He held a 15-minute meeting with the leader at the residence of Ottawa's Roman Catholic archbishop, but Harper's meeting is expected to be held at a government site.

The Chinese also voiced their concerns last year when the Dalai Lama met with Jason Kenney, the current Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity Minister. The Dalai Lama was also given honourary Canadian citizenship at that time.

Fearing increased international support for the Dalai Lama, the Chinese protest any meetings he holds with world leaders. They have also raised objections to a meeting that the Nobel Prize winner is expected to hold with German Chancellor Angela Merkel this weekend. The Chinese were also quick to protest when U.S. President George Bush met with the Tibetan leader at the White House in 2003.

Greenspan book: GOP 'swapped principle for power'



Greenspan book: GOP 'swapped principle for power'

  • Story Highlights
  • Greenspan: Bush deprived nation of checks, balances by failing to veto bills
  • Treasury secretaries not included in economic policymaking, Greenspan alleges
  • White House responds that its "economic policy was right, as our records show"
  • Ex-Fed head: Clinton either shared my views or he was "cleverest chameleon"

(CNN) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan slams President Bush and today's Republicans, while calling Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton "the smartest presidents" he worked with, according to an advance copy of his upcoming book.

art.greenspan.book.afp.gi.jpg

President Bush, left, smiles with Alan Greenspan after the longtime Fed chairman stepped down last year.

He further says the GOP deserved the stomping it took in November's congressional elections -- a ballot that saw both houses of Congress wrested from Republican control -- because the party "swapped principle for power."

His book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," is scheduled for release Monday. CNN obtained a copy Saturday.

In the book, Greenspan wrote that Bush essentially left an unbridled GOP Congress to spend money however it saw fit, and by not vetoing a single bill in six years, the president deprived the nation of checks and balances.

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Greenspan, an 81-year-old Republican who retired last year after five terms as Fed chairman, wrote that he made no secret of his view that Bush should reject some bills.

"It would send a message to Congress that it did not have carte blanche on spending," Greenspan recalls telling the administration. "But the answer I received from a senior White House official was that the president didn't want to challenge House Speaker Dennis Hastert. 'He thinks he can control him better by not antagonizing him,' the official said."

Don't Miss

The White House, however, said that vetoes weren't necessary because Congress "worked with us."

"The Republican Congress stayed within the president's top-line numbers on non-national security appropriations bills. We had veto threats, which were used to good effect to keep spending within the president's numbers," said spokesman Tony Fratto.

Greenspan wrote in his book that the decision was costly.

"To my mind," he wrote, "Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake -- it cost the nation a check-and-balance mechanism essential to fiscal discipline."

He further wrote that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill "found himself the odd man out; much to my disappointment, economic policymaking in the Bush administration remained firmly in the hands of the White House staff."

Fratto countered that O'Neill and former Treasury Secretary John Snow "had the opportunity to present their ideas through the policymaking process. If ideas failed to carry the day, it probably had something to do with the force and logic of the policies being advocated, rather than anything about the 'process.' Ideas were considered, sometimes they achieved consensus, sometimes not -- nothing unusual there. At any rate, where we ended up on economic policy was right, as our records show."

"We're not going to apologize for increased spending to protect our national security," Fratto said. "That isn't just increased spending. It's an investment in the safety and security of the nation, which is also, by the way, an important economic objective."

Greenspan praised former President Clinton and his attitude toward economic policies, saying, "either Clinton shared many of my views on the way the economic system was evolving and on what should be done, or he was the cleverest chameleon I'd ever encountered."

"Clinton was often criticized for inconsistency and for a tendency to take all sides in a debate, but that was never true about his economic policy," he wrote. "A consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth became a hallmark of his presidency."

Greenspan said Clinton and former President Nixon were "by far the smartest presidents I've worked with."

The former Fed chairman says his view of the Bush administration was not always so grim, and that he was initially excited about Bush's election.

"I looked forward to at least four years of working collegially with many of the government's best and brightest men, with whom I had shared many memorable experiences. And on a personal basis, that is how it worked out," Greenspan wrote. "But on policy matters, I was soon to see my old friends veer off in unexpected directions."

Dion and Liberals Rejected in Quebec...Huge day for Harper and NDP


Dion and Liberals Rejected in Quebec...Huge day for Harper and NDP:

Wow! Suddenly it looks like the deal Stephane Dion made with Elizabeth May about not running a Green candidate in his own Quebec riding doesn't look as one sided as it did a few months ago. Dion may need every vote he can get to hold his own seat in Quebec. Last night was a huge defeat for the Liberal brand in both Outremont and the other two ridings. In St-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Liberals were also beat by the NDP and finished with less than 10% of the vote. If Francophone Quebec is so opposed to Dion, what type of message does it send to the rest of the country. For starters, they should know him best. Second, the clock has been turned back on separation in Quebec thanks to Harper's policies. Based on francophone opposition at the Liberal leadership convention and last night; I have serious questions on if this man can keep the country united and Quebec within Canada. In Outremont, this was not a close defeat due to an NDP star candidate. Thomas Mulcair defeated Dion's hand picked candidate Jocelyn Coulon 48% to 28% in a riding Liberals have held consistently (accept once under Mulroney) for over 70 years. Every high profile Liberal MP was on stage last night to share in the concession speeches. Today they wake up plotting leadership races, the question now is what is left to lead?


The Winners:

Stephen Harper and Conservatives:

Today, most of the attention is going to be focused on the Liberal brand in Quebec, Dion's leadership and the upset in Outremont. While all of that deserves attention, the big winner last night was Stephen Harper. Roberval mayor Denis Lebel took a seat from the block in Roberval—Lac-St. Jean with an impressive 60% of the vote. They also came within 2000 votes of the other rural Quebec seat gaining over 12,000 votes on the 14000 vote margin from the last general election. For Harper, this is vindication of his policies towards Quebec. At this point no one disputes that the Conservatives are rapidly becoming the federalist alternative. There is also no question that the ADQ victories in the provincial election in Quebec could translate into the needed seats Harper has to win in order to win a majority government through rural Quebec. This by-election will also give Harper full power returning to the house for a Throne Speech in October. If John Tory wins some seats in the 905, Northern Ontario and maybe even a couple in Toronto; it will be obvious that the Liberal fortress is crumbling and the temptation to call a federal election may be too great to pass. Of all the parties, last night the Conservatives were the biggest winners.

Jack Layton and the NDP:

The NDP also won huge last night taking only their second seat from Quebec in their history. Jack Layton was clearly smiling from ear to ear yesterday and the additon of Mulclair is going to keep the party firmly planted on the left as far as the environment and Afghanistan go. While last night was huge for Layton and the NDP; it should be pointed out that they had a star candidate who won a by-election. It remains to be seen if this can be the event that leads the NDP to break into Montreal the way they have in Toronto. The fact that they defeated the Liberals in Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot (won by the Bloc candidate) is a positive that they can build on.

The Losers:

The Bloc:

Harper's open federalism, the ADQ growth and the Liberals not being in power are challenging the relevance of the Bloc. Separation is at an all time low both federally and provincially. Autonomy and less centralism from the federal government have won the argument of the day. As a result, the Bloc is taking major hits in their core area of support. The landscape in Quebec has clearly changed. It is not longer federalism vs. separation. The Conservatives now seem to be battling the Liberals, NDP, Green and Bloc all of whom represent and split the left. Like Dion, Duceppe's leadership is also in trouble and has been since he had cold feat about getting involved in the provincial party leadership race. The Bloc is going to have to find a purpose or else they could find themselves swept away in Ottawa come the next general election.

The Green Party:

Constantly polling around ten percent between elections, last night's results brought them back to earth. The Green Party was invisible in all three ridings as well as in the media throughout this by-election. They failed to achieve 4% in any of the ridings. This morning the Green Party is going to have to ask if they are a serious national party that can challenge for a seat or are they just the biggest of the fringe parties closer to the Communists and Canadian Action Party than to the NDP. Perhaps they will do better in provinces that do not have the Bloc splitting the left environment vote. In any of the three races last night, it is tough to see an example of how the environment (or Afghanistan) really played a serious role in the campaign.

The Liberal Party:

Today Liberal spin doctors will be in full force trying to downplay the clear negatives that last nights results signal for the Liberal Party and their leader. Since December, there have been serious questions about Dion's leadership. He is a dry academic who rode Elizabeth May's by-election performance into a green image that happened to be the issue of the day. He was a compromise between right wing Ignatieff and left wing Bob Rae. He had a great back room deal with Kennedy that gave him just enough delegates to win and right up until the final results you could count his Quebec delegate support on your left hand. As a leader, both his image and English language skills are a problem; and he has not found any serious issues that would lead anyone to really get behind him. Was last night his fault? Partially. He had the opportunity to run Brigette Legault (top youth in the country, female, billingual, well known in Quebec) or Justin Trudeau both who could have mounted far better grass root campaigns for the Liberals than what we saw over the past few weeks. Instead, he picked Jocelyn Coulon; another dry academic who in the past wrote some controversial articles about Israel that may have cost Liberals the 10% Jewish vote that traditionally votes Liberal. There is no doubt that Dion's leadership will be questioned both internally or externally, but I believe last night was something far more serious than simply changing the leader. The perception that the Liberals are a sinking ship in Quebec.

Last night it was obvious that the Liberal brand is still very much damaged from the sponsorship scandal. Francophone Quebec might as well be Alberta for Liberals, they simply are not on the radar and if they are impressions are very negative. If Ontario provincial Liberals start dropping 905, Northern and Toronto seats; the Liberal fortress will be cracked and the free fall will begin. This morning the Liberals are basically strong in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. Beyond that they are not popular right now. If people from the cities start to realize that the Liberals are not capable of winning the next election; they may begin to look elsewhere in order to play a role in parliament. The last thing Toronto and Montreal need is to vote Liberal and end up in the opposition benches as Conservatives form a majority based on rural and suburban areas. The political landscape has also seen the Liberals reduced from governing from the centre and taking the best ideas from right and left; to a situation where they have no direction and are splitting the extreme left with Greens, NDP and in Quebec the Bloc as well. Finally the biggest fear is if Liberal supporters write off Dion; stay home during the next campaign while backing other leadership contenders. There has already been some blame on Ignatieff in some circles. In other circles, Liberals set Dion up for the disaster that is today by suggesting Outremont was going to be a major test of his leadership. Clearly Dion failed that test...now what? Finally this sends a message that Liberals may have a new leader, but they have to talk more about what Liberal values are; and accept that they are no longer the Canadian values that have been promoted in the past. All signs seem to point in the direction that this country is slowly moving to the moderate right. Liberals must adapt to the new realities as oppose to the mindset that they are natural governing party who just has to show up to win.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl

************

Results from Monday's federal byelections

Sep 17, 2007 11:59 PM
Percentage of vote in brackets:

OUTREMONT

Thomas Mulcair, NDP: 11,156 (48.4)

Jocelyn Coulon, Liberal: 6,554 (28.4)

Jean-Paul Gilson, Bloc Quebecois: 2,490 (10.8)

Gilles Duguay, Conservative: 1,907 (8.3)

Francois Pilon, Green: 504 (2.2)

Francois Yo Gourd, neorhino.ca: 141 (0.6)

Mahmood Raza Baig, Independent: 77 (0.3)

Jocelyne Leduc, Independent: 66 (0.3)

Alexandre Amirizian, Canadian Action Party: 43 (0.2)

Romain Angeles, Independent: 42 (0.2)

Regent Millette, Independent: 32 (0.1)

John C. Turmel, Independent: 30 (0.1)

(166 of 168 polls)

– – –

ROBERVAL-LAC-ST-JEAN

Denis Lebel, Conservative: 17,458 (59.4)

Celine Houde, Bloc Quebecois: 7,930 (27.0)

Louise Boulanger, Liberal: 2,806 (9.6)

Eric Dubois, NDP: 675 (2.3)

Jean-Luc Boily, Green: 499 (1.7)

(194 of 194 polls)

– – –

ST-HYACINTHE-BAGOT

Eve-Mary Thai Thi Lac, Bloc Quebecois: 13,443 (42.1)

Bernard Barre, Conservative: 11,965 (37.5)

Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP: 2,538 (7.9)

Jean Caumartin, Liberal: 2,379 (7.4)

Jacques Tetreault, Green: 1,169 (3.7)

Christian Willie Vanasse, neorhino.ca: 384 (1.2)

Michel St-Onge, Canadian Action Party: 71 (0.2)

(224 of 224 polls)




*****************

Tories steal seat from Bloc as Liberals lose Outremont

Even before polls close, Liberals begin pointing fingers for failure of Dion's hand-picked candidate

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

MONTREAL AND OTTAWA — Stéphane Dion suffered a by-election blow Monday that is expected to cast a shadow over his leadership as the Liberals lost their Outremont stronghold to the NDP and reports of new infighting emerged inside his party.

NDP star candidate Thomas Mulcair thrashed Mr. Dion's handpicked standard-bearer, Jocelyn Coulon, and the Conservatives' gain of a Bloc Québécois riding only rubbed salt in the Liberal wounds.

At the same time, a senior official in Mr. Dion's office said they will review allegations from some party activists that backers of deputy leader Michael Ignatieff discouraged some Liberals from working on the Coulon campaign.

The three by-election results – in which the Bloc hung onto the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot – suggest Quebec's federal political map is being redrawn.

It suggests the Conservatives are the main competition for the separatist Bloc in the largely francophone areas outside Montreal and Western Quebec, with the Liberals unable to reclaim the francophone vote even in Montreal.

The NDP, meanwhile, established an important beachhead just as Quebec voters are rethinking their allegiances – it's their first Quebec seat since a one-time by-election in 1990 that will likely see Mr. Mulcair, a former provincial Liberal environment minister, head to Ottawa as lieutenant to NDP Leader Jack Layton.

The Conservatives picked up a long-time Bloc Québécois stronghold in Roberval—Lac-St. Jean. Roberval mayor Denis Lebel won with a stunning 59.4 per cent of the vote, leaving the Bloc's Celine Houde with only 27 per cent.

The Bloc's Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac won in St-Hyacinthe—Bagot with 42 per cent, beating Tory Bernard Barré, with 98 per cent of the votes counted.

The Liberals garnered less than 10 per cent of the vote in both those ridings, and was fourth behind the NDP in St-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

But Outremont was the most noteworthy — because it proved to be a debacle for Mr. Dion.

Mr. Mulcair took 48 per cent of the vote, to only 28 per cent for Mr. Coulon, with 98 per cent of the polls counted.

Mr. Dion took the stage last night, with Mr. Ignatieff nearby, and told the crowd at Mr. Coulon's headquarters that they will remember the by-election when they win a general election.

“At that moment … we will remember this night of Sept. 17 and we will say that we Liberals had the fortitude to pass through a difficult moment to rebound for all Canadians,” he said.

Mr. Layton, meanwhile, told an ebullient crowd at a St. Laurent Boulevard bar: “You have changed the political face of Quebec – and Canada.”

Some Liberals were insisting even before Mr. Coulon and Mr. Dion conceded defeat that the by-election was a one-off affected by low turnout and a star NDP candidate, and that it did not reflect what would happen in a general election.

But senior Liberals had suggested the riding would be an acid test for his leadership – and there were whispered rumblings that he could face a mounting challenge if he lost, although many doubt he can be forced out.

But there were also reports of allegations of sabotage by rivals and counter-allegations of false scapegoating.

Monday, a senior Liberal said he expects a review of allegations from some party workers that they were discouraged from working on the campaign by organizers they suspect were behind Mr. Ignatieff.

“We're going to have a hard look at this on the political and the internal side,” the official said. “... We can't just brush this away.”

Party workers also revealed Monday that they have been filing complaints to Mr. Dion's office for months about other activities by former members of the Ignatieff team. They include complaints that the Toronto MP's supporters are aggressively campaigning in an attempt to stack the party's national executive with Ignatieff backers when some national executive positions are up for re-election this fall.

They also said that former Ignatieff organizers, who perceive the Liberal leader as weak, have been sending campaigners in an attempt to get Ignatieff supporters nominated to run in the next general election.

In response to the allegations, an Ignatieff spokesperson said: “We're not going to comment on rumours and speculation and anything like that.”

Many Liberals were buzzing Monday with rumours that the Dion and Ignatieff camps are pointing fingers at each other – although at least some of Mr. Dion's camp insist they do not believe charges of disloyalty against Mr. Ignatieff's camp.

Members of Mr. Dion's team feel it is to be expected that after a long leadership fight, there will be some trying times on the unity front. They said they were aware Ignatieff backers have been holding meetings in Toronto, but that they have been told they were to raise funds to cover Mr. Ignatieff's campaign debts.

The Outremont seat came open when Paul Martin's Quebec lieutenant, Jean Lapierre, resigned in January. Both Bloc seats were held by high-profile veterans: Yvan Loubier resigned in Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot to run unsuccessfully in the March provincial election, and Michel Gauthier, the party's onetime leader, gave up his Roberval–Lac-Saint-Jean seat to retire from politics.

The Conservatives' win in Roberval–Lac-Saint-Jean is partly ascribed to a popular local candidate, Mr. Lebel. But it also indicates a hardening realignment that sees the federal Conservatives and the provincial Action Démocratique emerging as the chief competition to the separatists outside Montreal.

Outside of Montreal, “there's no doubt that the sovereigntists' adversary is no longer the Liberals,” said Jean-Herman Guay, a University of Sherbrooke political scientist.

Recent provincewide opinion polls show the Tories roughly tied for second with Liberals across the province, considerably behind the Bloc, although many believe that hides different regional battles.

The race in Outremont, a riding in the heart of Montreal that is usually a Liberal bastion, has caused some Quebec Liberals to predict that a loss would place Mr. Dion's leadership in jeopardy – or at least cause some in the party to “make some noise” that would unsettle him, in the words of one MP.

The Liberals have almost always won the riding, home to Montreal's francophone elite. The NDP, meanwhile, launched an all-out blitz to Mr. Mulcair that saw Mr. Layton repeatedly campaign in the riding, hoping that the party could establish a beachhead in the province.

More than 100 Liberals, including Mr. Dion's wife, Janine Krieger, and about a dozen MPs manned the phones in an office behind Mr. Coulon's storefront campaign headquarters. Desks were divided by ethnic community, and multilingual MPs such as Mario Silva and Omar Alghabra called those who speak their language.

“You want it to turn as best you can, so you do whatever you can,” said Toronto MP Ken Dryden, whose status as a Montreal Canadiens hockey legend has not been forgotten in the city. He said the by-elections themselves are perhaps not crucial, but they are being made into major symbols: “They're as big as they are made out to be.”

Across town, Mr. Layton and his communications director, Brad Lavigne, stood in shirtsleeves poring over a riding map when a reporter walked in, plotting out a tour of “zone houses” – neighbourhood mini-headquarters for the organization – to pump up the troops.

At the polls, some voters said they felt problems around Mr. Dion's Liberals. Romeo Vézina, a senior citizen who said he has almost always voted Liberal, said the riding had become harder for the Liberals to win as it was extended east – an area where there are more sovereigntists. But he added that the party and Mr. Dion are having problems now: “He does not have the team he needs to support him,” he said before voting at a Fairmount Street school.

Another voter leaving the polls, Phil Koropotkin, said he's not impressed with Mr. Dion, and switched from past elections: “I've always voted Liberal, but it's time for a change. There's nobody there that stimulates me,” he said. “I think the leadership is in for a rude awakening.”

Before the results came in, the race in Outremont and the weak campaigns in the two other races had some senior Liberals from Quebec arguing it was time for the party to wake up and start aiming a major organizational effort at the province.

Does this mean general election in November?

At this point it is too early to say. Clearly Harper is not afraid to have one. We have the money in the bank, we are growing in the polls and we have a solid record to take back to the people. NDP will probably vote against the throne speech for sure. The Bloc and the Liberals have the most reason to prop up the government, but can they afford to do so? I would put the odds at 50% for a November election and 95% there will be a federal election by the next budget.

Thanks for reading...

Darryl



************

Liberals trounced in Quebec by-elections
SHAUN BEST / REUTERS
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, right, speaks to supporters as deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff looks on last night in Montreal.
Email Story Email story
Report Typo Report typo or correction

Sep 18, 2007 04:30 AM

Ottawa Bureau

MONTREAL–The right and left wings of Canada's political spectrum got a boost last night from three Quebec by-elections that pounded Stéphane Dion's Liberal party and dealt a blow to the province's sovereignists.

The minority Conservative government added a seat in Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean, giving it 126 MPs. A troubled Liberal party lost its traditional fortress in the Montreal riding of Outremont to the New Democratic Party, which ran a popular former Quebec environment minister, Thomas Mulcair.

"It's clear that many people did not vote for us tonight, but they listened to us and they respect us," said Dion, speaking to election workers and surrounded by prominent members of the Liberal caucus. "Respect comes first. The support will follow."

The Liberal election team appeared to be in freefall in the final days of the campaign, with Dion supporters blaming the poor organization on a sabotage effort by those loyal to leadership rival Michael Ignatieff, the deputy leader.

Ignatieff and a number of his backers showed up in Outremont to await the results – as did most other leadership candidates – but they all left with long faces.

Dion remained the optimist.

"We Liberals have the strength to go through a difficult period to rebuild for all Canadians," he said.

Mulcair earned 48 per cent of the votes cast, while Liberal Jocelyn Coulon, an academic who was Dion's hand-picked candidate, received only 29 per cent.

The Bloc Québécois, which lost support in all three races, was able to hang on to its long-time riding in Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot with Eve-Mary Thai Thi Lac.

The biggest winners of the night, though, were Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Tories. In Roberval, local mayor Denis Lebel won back a riding from the Bloc that had been lost since the collapse of Brian Mulroney's Conservative coalition in the 1993 election. The Tories also ran a close second in Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot with boxing promoter Bernard Barre.

In both Roberval and Saint-Hyacinthe, the Liberals earned fewer than 10 per cent of the votes cast.

Harper's aim in Quebec is to replace the Liberals as the option for federalist voters and last night's results suggest he is making progress. "We really obtained an exceptional score," said Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, Harper's Quebec lieutenant. "Under the leadership of Stéphane Dion, the Liberal party of Canada is not an option for Quebecers to consider," he said.

The NDP victory in Outremont is significant for two reasons: The riding has gone Liberal in all but one election since 1935. As well, Mulcair profited from his personal popularity to win just the second seat ever in Quebec for the left-wing party. (The first was consumer advocate Phil Edmunston, who won a 1990 by-election.)

"Today, Quebec has chosen a new direction," NDP Leader Jack Layton told a cheering crowd in Outremont as he congratulated them for "making history and changing the direction of politics in Quebec and across Canada."

Mulcair said: "The people voted for change and I am honoured to take that message to Ottawa," Mulcair said. "It's a call for peace, for the environment and to be a voice for the future generations as well as for working families."

The loss of Roberval to the Tories leaves the Bloc pondering its troubled fortunes in a province it has dominated for 14 years. Sovereignists have been at pains to understand and mitigate the rise of conservative strains in Quebec politics.

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe last night warned the Tories against getting swelled heads.

"Conservatives have been saying for a long time now that we're no longer pertinent. We've got 49 (Quebec) MPs in the Commons and they have 11. Our pertinence will be judged in the next federal election."

The outcome of last night's votes change the standings in the House of Commons, but do not alter the strength of Harper's minority government. With the by-election results, the Conservatives now have 126 seats, the Liberals 96, the Bloc 49, and the NDP 30. There are three independent MPs and four vacancies, including three in Ontario. Those vacancies must be filled by by-elections in the coming months.

Controversy in the lead-up to the vote over a decision by Elections Canada to allow veiled women to vote without showing their faces, which all political parties argued was an unreasonable measure to accommodate Muslim women, met with muted protest. Local news reports said half a dozen Quebecers, including one man, showed up to vote with their faces covered.


*********************

Dion disaster at the polls
By ALEXANDER PANETTA



OTTAWA (CP) — One look at Stephane Dion’s grim visage late Monday was all that was needed to discern the dismal state of his Liberal party in Quebec after his first test as leader.

In a Liberal nightmare scenario-turned-reality, the party lost a traditional Montreal fortress and was reduced to single-digit support in two other Quebec ridings.

A party that owned the province through much of Canada’s history has now fallen below what was supposed to be the nadir of the post-sponsorship election last year.

Francophones deserted the party in all three ridings on Monday. Their last remaining stranglehold on multi-ethnic, federalist pockets of Montreal was slackened.

For only the second time since 1935, the Liberals lost the multiethnic riding of Outremont — and it wasn’t even close. They were beaten by 20 percentage points by the NDP.

The Liberal standard-bearer in Outremont, academic Jocelyn Coulon, was Dion’s hand-picked candidate and in many ways a mirror image of the leader: solid, intellectual, but not a man to electrify crowds.

Dion should expect to face tough questions from his own troops. One Liberal MP went out of his way to point out that the Liberals’ current seat-count in Quebec — 12 — is the lowest since Confederation.

“There are going to have to be changes in the leader’s entourage,” said the Liberal MP.“We can’t go ahead like this into the next elections.”

Some Liberals have suggested that Dion needs to make urgent changes in the way he handles communications and fundraising, where his party is being badly out-financed by the Tories.

Another Liberal MP agreed that it’s time for a few changes.

“This is a tough break,” said Ottawa-area MP Mauril Belanger. “But this could be good for us if it helps us make some adjustments in time for the next elections.”

The Liberal leader admitted his disappointment but made a bold prediction about the next federal elections.

“We will win them,” he told a group of supporters in Outremont.

“At that point we will look back on this night of Sept. 17 and say: ‘We Liberals had the strength to overcome a difficult moment.’ “

It was Liberal losses in Quebec that were a main reason for the party seeing its majority government slip away in 2004, and then losing power altogether in 2006.

Dion was named Liberal leader after that last electoral debacle amid hopes that the Quebec native son could halt and reverse that downward spiral.

But his first electoral test Monday did not go as planned.

In addition to losing Outremont — the traditional home of the party’s Quebec lieutenants — to the NDP, the Liberals also fell behind the New Democrats in St-Hyacinthe-Bagot.

They also held less than 10 per cent of the vote in Roberval-Lac-St-Jean, although they finished well ahead of the NDP there.

The party’s fall from grace has been staggering in the province since 2004.

Under then-rookie leader Paul Martin, the Liberals were boldly predicting that they would sweep Quebec and reduce the Bloc Quebecois to a rump.

But after the sponsorship scandal erupted, the Grits lost almost half their Quebec seats. The trend continued in 2006, as the Liberals saw their seats drop to 13 from 21 in the province.

Quebec has 75 seats — almost one-quarter of the total in Parliament.

Dion suggested one silver lining in Monday’s results: the collapse of the Bloc Quebecois vote in Outremont and Roberval, and its backward slide in St-Hyacinthe.

“Parties that believe in Canada made progress tonight,” Dion said.

Unfortunately for Liberals, it was the NDP and Conservative party that drew dividends from the Bloc losses.