Arbour would be a disaster. This article is full of holes. Who are the sources? I know the Liberal party and she doesn't have a hope in hell.

was this plucked out of thin air?

this is just a "faint hope" for those social liberals, grasping and gasping at straws. I'll eat crow or anything else if Arbour shows any interest at all...

Logjam 603: you cannot be serious?

Why wouldn't the Liberals utilize the all time ass kisser for their leader,Buzz.

Please, not another intellect. PET was enough.

the NDP should recruit her and then bounce out the Liberals as the main alternative to the Tories (a la New Labour in Britain).

Why do I say this? Just because it would be interesting. I like to see change-ups in politics and its a bit boring to see a see-saw between two has-been political parties overloaded with dead-weight.

In early December, Ms. Arbour [UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and erstwhile justice of the Supreme Court of Canada] responded in a letter to an Islamic organization that had complained to the UN about the cartoons. "I understand your reaction to the images that appeared in the newspaper," she wrote. "I find alarming any behaviours that disregard the beliefs of others. This kind of thing is unacceptable."

Just to advance the discussion a bit!

Isn’t this the report where the investigators declined the invitation to inspect the camp firsthand? When I do an investigation I always visit the scene, even if I doubt everything the guide is telling me.

As UN High commissioner for Human Rights that statement 'might' seem about right since her concerns are somewhat more general and didactic.

As a potential Liberal leader in an election can you imagine what the press and the conservative opposition would do with it? Given her dust-ups with John Bolton at the UN she'd also be targeted by every right-winger in the US (and their newly empowered compatriots here in Canada) if she quit to run for the leadership.
I think she has way too much baggage to be a credible leader, I don't think she'd be interested either for that matter.

Any other ideas?

Interesting quote in this story:

"Arbour, they say, could extend a particularly Canadian vision of human rights internationally . . ."

Would that be Canada's actual vision of human rights or the one Canadians delude themselves into believing. I'm thinking of say, the Lubicon Cree and other little beauties of racism and intolerance that the Canadian establishment inflicts on "Indians."

The two "visions" are quite different.

what a VACUOUS article ! as someone pointed out, about picking this out of the air...

that MADAME ARBOUR would become THE MADAME LIBERAL...

and change from a world renown fighter of HUMAN RIGHTS to a BROTHEL LEADER...is really out there!

SHE has been touted as one of the few WOMEN that would/could be able to lead the UNITED NATIONS back into respectability...she is on the WORLD STAGE with more power than any Canadian PRIME MINISTER...

leading a bunch of political whores ! geeze !

WHADDA YA SMOKIN ??? i'd like ta get me that far out !!!

This message has been deleted as it contained insulting and defamatory remarks.

Tyee Site Manager

Yeah, this is outta thin air. I've heard no such talk (not that I necessarily would).

Leading a party in opposition would be a huge step down, especially when she can coast on the international lecture circuit and have far more influence (and make more money).

I see her in more high-profile international roles - perhaps the ICC. I can't see her stepping down into the skullduggery and cut-&-thrust of Ottawa nonsense....I least I can't see why she would...

Mr. Beers is just tryin' to get us all goin'...

;-)

Logjam's quote: "Then we could implement social justice for one and all, ensure everyone has a well paying government job and make peace prevail over the world" clearly shows why a union party like the NDP will never get more than 20% of the popular vote. The government cant create jobs, it simply redistributes profits. Let the Liberals keep staking the left, it leaves the middle and right unsplit.

hehe - someone just told me they heard Hedy Fry on CBC saying she wants to run for the leadership...

On a more serious note, any truth to the rumour Martha Piper is being courted by Liberal insiders (I think she retires from the UBC Presidency this June, and hasn't announced any subsequent plans)?

martha is an American as I recall . . . she couldn't lead the Amercian hating Libs any more than she could lead us/NDP.

Don't think she parlez's le frenchy very well

Hold on, folks! This article assumes a lot, but it is an interesting seed to plant. Hard to say if the seed wants to sprout on such grounds... Hard to say just how well she would do, as she's a complete unknown to most. Why, we don't even know if she has a Liberal party membership, but she does have the credentials to be taken seriously, and in spite of what some of us think of in terms of how ineffective the UN really is, this world would likely be worse off without one.

The UN, although controlled or heavily manipulated by empires, (et. el. the veto nations) is still the largest overall voice to help police human rights violations on a mass scale. Their opinion overall, happens to count. Kyoto wouldn't have had a chance without the UN and as flawed as it is, we have to start somewhere. Any joker who wishes to debate this one should take a better look.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/02/16/glaciers-greenland060216.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/02/15/sea-ice060215.html

and check sea ice cover pics in this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/
and although regimes like Bush's buck the trend, the Republican clock and U.S. domination is winding down. Their own people are getting quite sick of them, knowing where it will lead.

This world's human rights violations would occur, regardless of whether the UN was there or not. And to think that Canadians fool themselves into thinking that we do well internationally with human rights, just isn't true. Name a country that doesn't have racism to begin with, and I'll show you a country with only one race. Even then, there'll be religous bigots and all the rest, for all religions have their cults, but thats the way we humans are.

It just so happens that we violate each other all the time everywhere, world wide. So a woman with a reputation of not taking any stupid arguements has been pointed out as a possible leader. Should we shake our heads without looking at the alternatives? What are those alternatives anyways? Marta? No offence, but was it you that mentioned Emersons name not so long ago as a successor according to insiders?

The Liberals aren't total fools. They need someone who can not only win a convention... the Liberals need someone who can form a majority government, not just in the inner circles of the parties likes and dislikes, but a leader who is actually electable by the majority of this country!

And this David Beer bashing... this writer is using an imagination that goes beyond watching a bunch of childish politicians pick our next PM, which, in a democracy such as ours, just happens to be a good practice. And if you are all so much smarter than David Beers for picking one out of the hat... then you could at least have the courtesy of dropping picks of your own, listing some good reasons why, other than "inner circles like them".

And don't be afraid. Think outside of the box! Its still a free country unless we are dumb enough to give Harper a majority and become so integrated with the U.S., that we no longer know what that is.

I saw the media picks. Remember Frank McKenna's name being mentioned as successor simply because he stepped down as ambassador to the U.S.? As if he had a choice. It seemed as though the entire country's media was out to lunch on that one, along with the rest of their "A" team. And, as David Beers points out, Micheal Igniateff is no Trudeau. So who? Surely, we can do better than bashing without offering any solutions... again.

Ken Dryden, Ralph Goodale and Belinda Stomach are my top three from most to least. Paul Martin is still a possiblity, albeit, a distant one, if I had to be partial to this province, it would be Don Bell, and as for names outside of the box, or outside of politics altogether, I can't think of one to my own shame, except maybe... Louise Arbour? Nows the time to think outside of the political circle, not later.

not bashing beers and not being cynical, brrain. I'm saying that arbour isn't interested. Why would she be? As others noted, she's got more pull and push where she is now in the area that motivtes her. As a PM she'd be awfully hamstrung by all kinds of bullshit exigencies. I don't agree with those who question her motives or abilities or ideals. IN her current postion she's free to give her learned opinions without sufferjing the slings and arrows of an ignorant electorate and mediocre supporting cast. that's all. I'll stand by what i said earlier, a lot of social libs are grasping. they shouldn't. but don't start grasping at arbour. she aint interested. i'll eat my hat if she is.

Brain, my man
You know me better than that. No sense of bashing David Beers I hope. Ideas are all good. I think Louise Arbour has some baggage and she's also a bit long in the tooth I should have thought - given that she'd be contesting an election against someone Harper's age.

Further, and I can't swear to this, but I think I remember hearing an interview with her and she expressly ruled out politics as being the kind of thing she would not want to do because of the limitations it placed upon someone who was interested in making positive and active change - which was why, as I recall, she decided to leave the Supremes.

David writes:

Sorry David, you fail Econ 101. Your simplistic cliche is based on an economic paradigm that insists on ascribing wealth solely to that which is based on resource and human exploitation.

The truth is that every dollar spent by government cycles through our economic system as we provide services, i.e., teaching, health care, and all manner of services demanded by citizens, and is multiplied every time the dollar changes hands. And, Canadians have long demanded a cooperative society, meaning government services are desirable.

And every time a paycheque, or business sales receipts for food, or manufactured goods, or services of any sort hits the banking system, the banks create for loans well in excess of the reserves in the vault. That in turn provides fuel for our economy. So, the money we spend on ourselves lights up the economy. Just ask any city council what the impact of a government office, or military base, or college or university have on the health of the local Chamber of Commerce.

The resource sector of our economy loves the first dollar slogan because the dogmatic amongst us eat it up. That would be you, David. Sorry, it is a incomplete analysis.

jtothlemfk: She likely isn't interested. This article does assume a lot. But the most powerful person in this country is the PM in my opinion. Minority Joe Clark government, no. Majority government? There are none more powerful for 4 years than the Prime minister of this country in a majority government.

G West: I do know you better than that (but she is 47 to Harpers 46 even though she looks old). And it was a general attempt to light fires under readers asses to use their minds for a change. Our opinions count, especially opinions of those who are close to people who are genuinely electable and good for this country not just to run as a leader, but also as MP's.

We have so often allowed politicians to decide who our leaders are going to be, or sway the judgement of Liberal delegates actually voting in these conventions, when the reality is that the best leaders for this country might not have a political history at all.

I'm not saying its David Suzuki or Dan Akroyd, or Bob Gainey, but its likely that the last two, maybe even all three, could do better than Micheal Ignatieff.

The thing is, guys, that the next Liberal leader is likely to be the next PM of this country. Harper won by Liberal default, by a sub par Liberal campaign, by a corrupt Chretien government, by cob webs, and by uniting the right.

Harper won't stand a chance of winning in the next election unless he can be percieved as being "moderate" when any good lefty or socialist if we can use such termonology without wincing, or anyone who is balanced, knows Harper is no such thing. He's extreme. And that "change" mantra won't work for him next time, considering his hypocritical appointments.

So, Harper has to lie to get elected, especially to form a majority. He has to tell this entire country that he's something he's not, and its likely what the Cons are going to do. And is Harper in trouble? Yup. The only thing that can save him right now is the Liberals being rudderless... along with NCC bought media for now. Thats it.

So, is it important to think about who is the best choice to lead this country? Not just the best liberal... but the best choice. Who have we got? Ken Dryden might be a jelly fish, but he's loved. He's majority electable. Whether or not he's up to it, or the party recognizes it, is another story. Don Bell knows how to govern. Ralph Goodale can be trusted to be on top of it with a budget. Who else?

Sorry Brain, my man, but you're wrong about Louise Arbour's age, no offence though She's 59!

Feb. 10, 1947: Born in Montreal. Parents owned hotel chain. Attended convent school. Known for irreverence when editor of high school magazine.

1967: Graduated from Collège Régina Assumpta with BA.

1970: Graduated from Université de Montréal with degree in civil law (LL.L.)

1971-72: Served as law clerk for Justice Louis-Philippe Pigeon of the Supreme Court of Canada while completing graduate studies at the faculty of law (civil section) of the University of Ottawa.

1977: Admitted to the Ontario bar.

1974-1987: Held various positions during this period, including research officer for the Law Reform Commission of Canada, vice-president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and associate dean of Osgoode Hall Law School.

1987: Appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario (High Court of Justice).

1990: Appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

1995: Appointed head of commission of inquiry to investigate and report on events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ont.

1996: Appointed chief prosecutor of war crimes before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in The Hague.

June 10, 1999: Appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The appointment took effect on Sept. 15, 1999.

Feb. 20, 2004: Announced she would accept an appointment as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Wups! Where did I get 47? And I thought I read this article (shaking my head) I thought she looked older than that, lol. Nice work on the info.

Louise Arbour has excellent qualities which does Canada proud .
She has a proven capacity to succeed to high position by virtue of high intellect and organizational ability ( raising three children is a major achievement on it's own ), and shown herself worthy of international trust by virtue of becoming UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

She is also 5 year the senior of Margaret Thatcher when the Baroness was elected UKPM, after serving 9 years in the trenches of British Parliament - not a battleground for the weak or weary.

The controlled confines of the courtroom or commisionary counsel are not the eye of the storm lifestyle which confronts political figureheads, and for which they must prepare long in advance - as Judges must in Law to fill their robes.

I would expect her to be a prime candidate, and a fine standerd of others, for an elected Senate - one without the same need of political affiliation as the House of Commons - when our government finally implements that proposal.

She gave the LaFontaine-Baldwin Symposium
Lecture in 2005. I think you can find it online in Pdf if you look for it. She would be wasted as PM, in my humble opinion.

Oh God, maikeru, not the bloody Senate! She's way too good for that!

G West

big smilie !

Besides, She's never married, has 3 kids and ruled in favour of lap-dancing and the recognition of common law rights - I can't imagine her in the bloody senate, can you?

And I think she was a pequiste when she went to college, which would have been during the 1970 FLQ crisis. Just wayyyy too much baggage! Let's leave her at the UN where she can snipe away at Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton.

Brain I liked your choice of David Suzuki. Within the first-past-the-post electoral system political parties control the system. Neither leaders of political parties nor party presidents nor the Canada Elections Act require their candidates to undergo any ability testing. So an internationally reknown scientist (climatologist, biologist or whatever) has little chance regardless of ability. There was a climatology report about glacier melting just yesterday, strange how political leaders do not find it troubling that parts of our country are sinking into the ocean. Or that the long-term climatological impact may dramatically affect the livability of eastern-Canada for humans.

As for Dryden, people do like hockey players and hockey players have been elected in other countries. Another lawyer in parliament is that what Canada really needs?

what's wrong with lawyers in parliament, ranbir? among other things, i believe it's a law-making institution. so maybe elaborate? or was that just a "ha! ha!" bait?

Here, throw some stones at my candidate, just so I can see how much of a problem it would be to drag him out of his legal chambers and into the Liberal leadership race.

I was just watching him on TVO and he's at the perfect age, and with an excellent background of experience, to undertake the job ... perhaps even uniting the Liberals and the NDP for a solid, revitalized majority.

Ready? For smarts, decency, training, and no baggage except that he was premier during a bad Ontario recession, I nominate BOB RAE as the next Liberal leader. Go!

and suzuki has always known he can do much more where he's at and where he's always been. constantly informing people of the myriad ways we're f'ing things up and the many things we can do or stop doing to try to make things right, or at least to move towards balance. the dude's been around for ages... he's been approached by political parties everywhere. suzuki knows federal politics (for his purposes) is a fool's game. imagine (with a WAY OUT imagination) that suzuki was a liberal leader and then PM... would he just start passing laws that healed mantle deep, stratosphere high wounds? If he ever got leadership or PM I would suggest that we, as humans, will have already been on our way... no?

Last time I heard Suzuki was NDP, so was Bob Rae. Ex supreme Court judge Abour is one sharp lady. When she was investigating mass graves she wasn't doing so from far away, she was in the muck. she has lots of guts, more than many of us. The UN sort of messed her around years ago but she is a survivor. Take a look at the book "The lion , the Fox and the Eagle. She being the eagle, Gen. McKenzie the fox, and Senator, ex General Dallaire the Lion. Those folks are admired by many outside our petty little group of political watchers.

Let's not throw mud at such an eminent Canadian as Ms. Abour till we have walked a few miles in their shoes. Ditto for the other two.

BC Mary
You're probably won’t believe this but I have mused something along the lines you suggest.
To wit, should Monsieur Harper manage to get elected and follow through with his diabolical plans to attract all the retrograde elements in Canadian society to his side, some kind of formal arrangement might be necessary between the 'liberal' wing of the Liberal party and other progressive elements such as the Greens and the NDP. My original suggestion stemmed from the bitter recognition that, absent some kind of real reform in the way MPs are actually elected, M. Harper might be with us for much longer than many or us would wish. You'll notice I specify the 'liberal' wing of the Liberal party since it is my assumption there are many elements of the large-L Liberal party who are, in fact, Conservative. Mr. Emerson, apparently is just a recent example of the type.

As for Mr. Rae's suitability for the project, he certainly has a lot to recommend him, although I can think of no provincial premier who has ever succeeded in becoming prime minister. I am not sure how serviceable his French is although I think it may be okay since I believe his family actually came from Montreal. I also think he may have received overtures from the Liberals in the past to run as a candidate. I think he'd be great personally but I suspect that there would be a lot of animosity from both traditional Liberals and traditional NDPers and I can't quite figure out how the marriage would be handled - given the fact that scripting Jack Layton's part in the drama might require a lot of finesse. Perhaps the best you could hope for would be some kind of coalition. Even so, I don't think this has much chance of happening until much nearer to the next election when the writing (as regards a potential Conservative majority) would be on the wall.
Mr. Rae, however, as far as I know, has not expressed any willingness to be considered for any more political adventures.

DPL

Completely agree with what you say about Louise Arbour - she is great and she's doing great service where she is. Just don't think she'd be interested in the job and you can bet the few things I've mentioned would be held against her if she was ever to contest an election for PM. Not fair, but reality, in my opinion!

Hey guys, chill.

Remember, the Liberals were sent to the penalty box by the fans.

In the meantime why not get behind the best leader the left has, Jack Layton.

I hear even Buzz is clamouring to get back onside because Bill Graham frightens him.

Brain, how would you pull Suzuki away from the NDP?

As for Arbour, I'm with the skeptics who ask why would she give up one the the most interesting positions on the globe to try to pull a bunch of relatively resourceful and privilaged citizens out of a big pile of muck of their own creation.

That's not a shot at you or your fellow party members Brain, but a reminder that the Liberals are in such trouble now thanks to the opportunism of some people in and around the throne.

I'd suggest a few of the Liberal old timers might start by rolling up their sleeves, washing a few dirty windows, airing out the back rooms and maybe even throwing in some new paint before trying to convince anyone the job is a step up or, for that matter, isn't a step into something messy.

allan

I think Brain, actually, votes Green. No question what you've got to say is good advice for Liberals. Probably for the NDP too for that matter given the BUZZ thing. For that matter, if push comes to shove and it looks as though Harper would form a majority next time, maybe some more Buzz might not be a bad idea!

Speaking hypothetically I think a lot of people are concerned about a Harper minority government and they are going to be even more concerned if the polls 18 months from now indicate that Harper can form a majority so your advice about 'chilling' may not be that great!

Colin, that's kind of unfair. The investigators didn't go to G'mo because they wouldn't be allowed to talk to the prisoners. I think they should be commended for not spending money just to embarrass the US or walk along the beaches of Cuba.

There seem to be speculations about the Libs and NDP joining forces to defeat Harper?
For one thing Harper will defeat himself!
Secondly why should any two parties join? look how screwed up the "not-so progressive-conservatives" have become!
It is time for Canada to have proper coalition governments, where independant parties agree on how to govern, instead of sniping at one another!
In such governments we would see for instance a Liberal primeminister and a NDP minister of labour!
Now they both have a reason to want to make the system work!
People talk about how Scandinavian countries have great social plans even when they basically are poor, small countries; They got that way by NOT having majority governments!
Besides should the Liberal party disappear as such, then a lot of voters would have to think for the first time in their lives about where to cast their ballots!
"We" used to buy Fords because our parents did, and vote as they did! time to grow up Canada!

She is exactly the type of leader that the Liberals need. Only problem is she doesn't need the Liberals. It's sad to think that they might end up with somebody like Michael Ignatieff. Oh well, maybe it will help the NDP.

I like Bob Rae myself BC Mary. He'd be a good NDP leader of Canada, never mind a Lib leader, but he definitely walked away from Ontario politics leaving it in better shape than Harris did in his time. If Jack needs replacing, Bob Rae is it, in my opinion.

And I voted Green. Heck, my riding went Conservative by 2 to 1, so it didn't matter much and I knew it wouldn't, plus my candidate was a school teacher, been around, so I could sleep comfortably if there was a slim chance for an upset realized.

Good comments for the most part from you all. I'm likened to think back on what Frank once said about people voting like their parents do and vote traditionally, and it takes alot to sway voters from it, and they might test other waters when they have to, but when things die down, jump back to familiarity...

So, that's why I say the Liberals will likely be the next goverment after this Con minority. Big question is, do we want a majority of Liberals? Can't see it happening, even if things are squeaky clean in terms of their next leader. Dryden might have that in him. He's the only name I can think of that is majority electable.

But there are other names to draw from in the well of MP Liberal elects. (David Suzuki, can't see him as a liberal either, maybe a Green in ten years, but it would be interesting to see someone outside of the box come in to public life.) There are some good names out there we haven't heard of that are worth mentioning with those who have been elected and sitting as Lib MP's.

Ethel Blondin Andrew: NWT former teacher, instrumental with Martins Native agreement in Kelowna. Unfortunate that she probably won't run, or stand a good chance to win. I like her story.

Ruby Dhalla: Hot and sexy diva with Money. She's a 31 year old former model, actress, runs several private clinics (bone cracker) She's young and up and coming, but not quite ready for leadership just yet.

Yasmin Ratansi: 54 year old female accountant that, for her age, isn't hard to look at. Has handled billions in her lifetime. Not the dullest knife in the kitchen, to be sure. Very well respected, and one of my new top choices. If I was a delegate, it would be Yasmin or Ken.

Joe Volpe: I like him too! So do his constituents. He's been elected several times, was a teacher before, a young 58.

And of course, there is Ken Dryden, Ralph Goodale and Belinda Stromach and my final pick, if worse comes to worse... Paul Martin.

Paul might very well be Canada’s reality check, but I don’t see voters shining up to him any time soon. Plus, he’s old. He’s 67 and he’s got 3 or 4 more years of public life in him and then its over anyways, so, I’m hoping he doesn’t struggle to stay in power with a snap election due to a lack of time to replace him. These are interesting days in politics for the liberals indeed!

And, there are some maybes...

In BC there is:
Stephen Owen: Former lawyer, well known here in BC, but not on my top 10.
Don Bell: BC Former Mayor. His leadership isn’t a secret in Vancouver.
Keith Martin: Former Reform/Con. To unproven.
Brent St. Dennis: Ontario former engineer, MP
Maria Minna: former WCB, MP

John Godfrey: long career in journalism, has books out, extensive political career, could have what it takes... but he’s unknown to me.

Micheal Igneatieff: Needs no introduction. Would have gone into Iraq war kills it for me.

Raymond Bonin: He’s worth a second look. Worked for air Canada for 25 years, professor at Cambrian College, but an unknown to most.

David McGuinty: former immigrations officer, lawyer, specifically in environment and natural resources. Age 45. Maybe…

Carolyn Bennet: Physician. Wrote: Kill or Cure? How Canadians Can Remake Their Health Care System. Maybe…

Judy Sgro: Aged 61 years. Former councilor for York in the 90’s, and served as an MP since 1999, holding Minister of Citizenship from 2003 to 2005, resigning on Jan. 14th.

And then, there are the conflicts of interest (where we could put Paul and Belinda in with this bunch, but these individuals don't need extra's. They're there for something else).

Peter Miliken: Not my pick, but he's a lawyer/politician incumbant for 20 years, speaker of the house.

Joe Fontanta: Another longtime Liberal executive. Both Pete and Joe have to many conflicts of interests for my liking.

John McCallum: Another conflict of interest brewing. Economist at RBC, held ministerial portfolio's.

Anthony Rota: Another Lib heavyweight conflict of interest.

Bill Graham: Current Interim leader, former minister of defence. Is what he is.
Jim Peterson: Another Liberal heavyweight potential “conflict of interest”.

Haven’t checked the Quebec MP’s yet and there are 13 elected MP's. Doubt if I’ll look to hard at Atlantic Canada’s MP's. And, there is some Liberal talent that didn’t get elected, but if Canadians were looking for politicians, or Liberals were looking for a leader from the political circle, it would come from those who have passed the grade. All in all, these are maybe's or ones with too much baggage, leaving me to look seriously at the mentioned names in the last post, and a quick look at who's in Quebec.

ARBOUR IS AS NWO AS ONE CAN GET
excerpts from:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/herman/louise.htm

Tribunal's Kangaroo Court Processes

According to Arbour, the Tribunal was "subject to extremely stringent rules of evidence with respect to the admissibility and the credibility of the product that we will tender in court," thus precluding "unsubstantiated, unverifiable, uncorroborated allegations" (April 20). This is a gross misrepresentation of what John Laughland described in the Times (London) as "a rogue court with rigged rules" (June 17, 1999). The Tribunal violates virtually every standard of due process: among others, it fails to separate prosecution and judge; witnesses can testify anonymously; confessions are presumed free and voluntary unless the contrary can be established by the prisoner; and "rules against hearsay, deeply entrenched in Common Law, are not observed and the Prosecutor's office has even suggested not calling witnesses to give evidence but only the tribunal's own 'war crimes investigators'" (Laughland).

As noted, Arbour presumes guilt before trial; the concept of "innocent till convicted" is rejected, and she can declare that people linked with Arkan "will be tainted by their association with an indicted war criminal" (March 31). Arbour clearly does not believe in the basic rules of Western jurisprudence. And within a month of her elevation to the Canadian Supreme Court she joined a court majority that grafted onto Canadian law the dangerous Tribunal practice of permitting a more liberal use of hearsay evidence in trials. (2) The consequent corruption of the Canadian justice system, both by her appointment and her impact, mirrors that in the Canadian political system, whose leading members supported the NATO war without question.

Beyond Orwell

NATO's leaders, frustrated in attacking the Serb military machine, quite openly turned to smashing the civil society of Serbia as their means of attaining the desired quick victory. Arbour and the Tribunal helped NATO by indicting Milosevic, thereby giving NATO the moral cover needed for escalated attacks on the hostage population.

Arbour and the Tribunal thus present us with the amazing spectacle of an institution supposedly organized to contain, prevent, and prosecute for war crimes actually knowingly facilitating them. Furthermore, petitions submitted to the Tribunal during Arbour's tenure had called for prosecution of the leaders of NATO, including Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, for the commission of war crimes. If she had been a prosecutor in Canada, Britain or the United States, she would have been subject to disbarment for considering and then accepting a job from a person she had been asked to charge. But Arbour was elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada by Chretien with hardly a mention of this conflict of interest and immorality. **

Nana
(Is this an attempt to suggest the poster is engaged in a Zola inspired effort to criticize the excesses of the greater American empire?) Be that as it may, it might have been nice if you had given readers the following information:

Christopher Black is part of a ‘team’ of Canadian lawyers who have attempted to bring war crimes charges against NATO before the War Crimes Tribunal, hardly an impartial observer; and Edward S. Herman is the author of 'Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda' (June 1998) and 'Triumph of the Market: Essays on Economics, Politics, and the Media' (October 1995).

Those who wish to investigate the authors of this slap job more thoroughly can do so themselves, suffice it to say that Zola's alter ego appears to think that Louise Arbour is an agent of the dark forces of global government and at the same time she is the target of Dick Cheney, John Bolton and the Bush White House for her work as UN Human Rights Commissioner.

Does that amount to a recommendation?

Brain, you may have voted Green this past time, but your words,(all of them my friend) spell 'I'm a Liberal' in briliant red.

Give us a break with your never ending list of potentials. Most of them wouldn't get past the sleeze alarms.

Joe Volpe? Ask the old-time Liberals who are trying to lure Sheila Copps back into the fold if they would support that unauthorized back surgeon.

David Suzuki will be an elderly man in 10 years and even less likely to want to play in the Ottawa test tube than he is now.

Why would he ever follow a one-horse show like the Greens when he has spent his life trying to explain the big picture to people?

As for Dryden, whom I like, the man is going to have to learn a few more offensive skills before he starts to hit the radar as a potential leader.

He is a good defender or goalie for his team and thus might be the best interim leader until the Libs get out of the doghouse. He has a good clean profile but, frankly, can he score goals?

To date his only big issue has been childcare, yet despite all the good wishes of Canada's child care advocates, he was hardly able to even get into onto the national agenda for a week.

It's time to drop the Belinda dream as well. I know she and daddy Stronach have money enough to buy almost anything, including favourable media comments.

But take away the billions and the lust in some mens' eyes and what does she offer?

Her crossing the floor was, admittedly, tidier than Emerson's recent double-dealing, but does little to remove the opportunist tag she wears so well.

And Paul Martin as the comeback kid. Give us a break, this guy, as nice as he sometimes sounds after reading his daddy's memiors, just doesn't get it, never did and never will.

He suffers from that thing called privilage and, I'd suggest, an arrogance best displayed by those who understand entitlement by birth.

It still baffles me how he thought he could hide his tax evading Canada Steamship Lines, which hasn't any Canadians or anyone else earning above the Canadian poverty line other than his three sons on staff.

As cheesey as it may sound. Paul's ship has sailed - and sunk.

G. West
No, my handle just means I'm a grandmother.... which means I've been around long enough to be able to figure out when I'm being conned.

Germany, Britain and the US had to take out Yugoslavia because it was not interested in giving up its sovereignty to the EEC. The Kosovo Liberation Army were running drugs and the US State Department characterized them as terrorist gangsters only 6 mos. before NATO started its illegal war.

Doesn't the fact that Madame Arbour made hearsay evidence permissable at both the Tribunal and in the Supreme Court of Canada give you pause?

She announced her decision to idict Milosovich to both Clinton and Blair two days before it was made public via the Tribune. That tends to indicate that she's a pitbull on a leash
held by others, in spite of her recent condemnation of Guantanamo. Heavens, as the chief "Human Rights" wonk she'd have to say something sometime or lose all credibility.

Nana
If you look back to what I've written, you'll find that I think Louise Arbour would be a bad choice for Liberal leader. I'm not a Liberal and my interest is purely academic so I don’t necessarily see myself as her defender either. I do think you should read her Lafontaine - Baldwin speech and take the testimony of the guys you posted with a grain of salt – I think their reputation may be just a tiny bit suspect too.

As to her decision about hearsay evidence: the rule on hearsay has always been a fairly nuanced and sometimes controversial issue for legal scholars. This ain't the place to talk about it - there are valid opinions on both sides. It's interesting that she also apparently believed that there are cases when details which would normally be kept out of evidence by the rape-shield principle should in fact be admitted into court. Certainly hasn’t made her a popular figure for feminists!

I think your conclusions about the indictment of Mr. Milosevic and the fate of the former Yugoslavia are subjects about which there is much debate and not many definite conclusions – that history is, after all, still being written. I just don't agree with the ad hominem nature of the material you posted to support your view.

In addition, I do think it's ironic that you're attacking someone who apparently worked in concert with the efforts of the 'new world government' (to borrow a phrase) in the Balkans who's now under attack by the Bush administration for her efforts to respond to the horrors of Gitmo and other instances of detention without charge.

Personally, I thought the 'Nana' thing was clever and you should have grabbed at it. Zola is not a bad model for a critic after all - not of course to demean your status as a grandma.
Cheers!

Allan:
Regardless of what party you think I support, I do have a Green party membership and I am sticking by them, regardless of what happens unless the Liberals can offer a better leader than they had, my riding can offer better candidates in my riding, or the Conservative threat becomes to real. In any case, I only have one vote, but I do offer "persuasion".

As for Joe, he's one of many names out there already, and I don't know much about him. Can see why they might want Sheila back in there, though (but not as a leader). If David Suzuki ever does get into politics, (and I seriously doubt that he will, I used his name half joking and half serious, only because he's MP electable) I hope its the Greens, and it won't be until late in his life. The Greens need to be on the radar at some point, and at some point, someone with a serious profile will run, because the environment needs to be taken far more seriously than anyone is willing to admit, except for those who vote for environmental platforms or ideologies (all 650,000+). Regardless of how one horse they might seem now, they won't be when the artic ice is gone 15 - 20 years from now and Greenland melts accelerate beyond anyone's expectations.

Do you seriously think anyone will be laughing at the Greens 50 years from now when rising coastline threats become more real? So much unjustified talk of them folding and such. So many of us just aren't getting it. As for Dryden, the man isn't an idiot. And he's loved. And he's electable. A great deal could be solved with Ken at the helm.

As for Belinda, she's likely going to be a PM within 10 years. She's no dumb blonde, isn't poor and isn't running for the money and everyone knows it. And, everyone is waiting for her to prove herself beyond switching flags. She'll get that chance.

As for Paul... you might know it. I might know it. Does Paul and his party know it? And what will happen with a snap election? What happens if there is a non confidence vote in April to July and election 5 weeks later? Do you think Bill Graham won't try to put his buddy Paul in the best position he can to assume leadership one more time like Chretien did, and, will the Liberal party have much choice? Do you think this country will have much choice? Or we can have more of what we've seen with the Cons this last 2 weeks.

And if its not the Cons or the Libs, then who? Is the NDP fit to run? The Bloc? The Greens? There are only two parties leading us in the next decade, the Cons and Libs and if I decide to pay attention to whats happening to the Liberal party because I detest the Conservatives, that shouldn't be calling be red or seeing red. It should be calling me smart enough to realize that the more "fit" any party becomes, the more fit this country becomes, especially at the leadership role.

How many times have I harped on voting for individuals instead of parties to begin with? Now we talking about a leader of a party that is likely to run this country for the next 7+ years out of 10, and that is one of the most important choices of all.

What are your thoughts, Allan, on Yasmin Ratansi? This is a name no ones ditzed and run down yet (with criticizers offering no names of their own, I might add... again.) It reminds me of Harper. Heck, some of us think Harper is a genious on virtue of "antagonist" alone, when his own choices reveal himself to be nothing more than a hypocrite or righty wingnut. Hardly a genious to me.)

Just as an afterthought, or with what "conflicts of interest" really imply, anyone who has read Emerson threads knows what I mean and the angst in which I draw this phrase from. When I say "conflict of interest", its means I don't want them to even think about running. And they are:

Peter Miliken
Joe Fontana
John McCallum
Anthony Rota
Bill Graham
Jim Peterson

I would prefer that these names didn't run as well for different reasons:
Keith Martin
Micheal Igniateff

And I haven't looked into Quebec or the maritimes yet. I'm sure I'll more for and against there as well, but just to say it one last time. The Liberal party is likely to form the next government in this nation after Harper's minority.

Anyone in this country who is electable and has contributed to our nation deserves a look, and if not right now, for futures. David Beers is looking outside of the political realm, and I'll give him full credits for it. The institution of law, although a natural fit to the federal scene, isn't the only institution to look at. Education, media, Business, even religion...

But I hate this last choice as the marriage between church and state, regardless of the apostle Paul's words on governing in christian life, this marrage of church and state, of Rome and Christianity, has been a tremendously ugly dark cloud on human history. And so, as Canadians, we should ask, "how best can I serve this nation and the world with the interests of life at heart? If I'm not electable, who do I know who has these aspired interests?"

Brain, I would suggest the only reason no one has dumped on Yasmin Ratansi is because no one (other than you), this side of Toronto has ever had reason to speak her name.

Besides, we have enough accountants (Harper), trying to run the country already , don't you think?

Seriously though, I'd say she has about as much chance of being PM as a Tasmanian devil.
I'm not being cheeky here. I had to google her and see she is a new Canadian.

As for Belinda, I can't even verify if she really is blonde. I'm not suggesting she is dumb (she realized on her own apparently what Harper was all about), but aside from getting re-elected, hasn't exactly caused a groundswell anywhere else.

Ok, so she gave Peter McKay a few good lumps but...

As for the Libs being a shoe-in to replace Harper's conservatives, I'll spit into the wind on this and offer that there is always hope Canadians will get over their parents' voting constraints and look for real change.

It's like 140 years of alternating between Dumb and Dumber.

Brain, I can't agree more with your concerns on the environment, but until the Greens dump their corporate-friendly leadership, they remain consigned to the sidelines on global warming just like the rest of the fast talkers.

The sad thing about global warming is it won't be taken seriously until it's far too late and even then, any political discussion will likely centre on who's fault it is, as if it will matter much when we are all fighting for the diminishing higher ground.

As for Dryden, I'm not knocking the man. I just don't think he has the flash for the job and that isn't a criticism.

The new egg-head from Etobicoke still has to explain his pro-Iraq war stance in a setting away from the ivied walls of academia.

Yes, first generation Canadian, didn't come to this country till she was a child... Yasmin Ratansi, a muslem... A little to much for the average Canadian, especially the Conservative Canadian. Do they even have an elected minority MP? Doubt that the Consevative intellect voter ever will.

Anyways, Allan, as you've pointed out, you are NDP, this is academic for you and so, I get it. I'm assuming, (which I shouldn't) that as far as your concerned, its NDP or no one and unfortunately, I don't see that scenerio happening Federally any time soon, and I'm not so sure I want to see it regardless.

There "is" such a thing as too much government control. It has always been about standards and enforcing these standards. If the private sector won't live up to standards or fill the shoes of making sure standards are met, then the government has no choice but to do so.

Will the private sector ever meet the needs of Canadians for a better environment, human rights, life rights, justice, or things like universal healthcare? Not if there's no money in it, they won't. And, is the goverment the best institution to offer choice to consumers? Hardly.

So we need both. A private sector to create jobs, ingenuity and offer choices to consumers, and we need a government to protect and instill human rights, education, justice, environmental and life protection for the good of everyone including the world, for peace, justice, equality and everything else that the private sector won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

And, we need a goverment that will keep the private sector from imploding on its own greed. Is the NDP really willing to do this? In many ways they will. However, I see a lot of spending and a lot of goverment control in their platform, sponsored by unions and labour groups, countering the private sector in some positive ways, sure, but not always in ways so positive.

If any entity should be looking out for labour rights, it should be goverment to begin with, not unions. But again, unions are needed because goverments change and policies change with them. And if a goverment that is union sponsored gets into power, what happens then?

Is the NDP going to pass legislation that will make unions unnecessary? Maybe legislation that will make them even moreso, and not every worker is happy to pay dues, by the way.

The question must always be asked. Who contributes to political parties and why? And, since Stephen Harper under his presidency with the National Citizens Coalition sued the Goverment to reappeal laws that used to make contributers transparent to the public and won, now we no longer have this luxury of knowing who's buying or lobbying party support anymore. We are left to guess and for now, its easy. 50 years from now, if things remain the same, it will become hard.

Ruling powers haven't often passed labor legislation because they've catered to their primary monetary support. The private sector. Is the NDP, once in power going to pass labor legislation to the point that unions will no longer be necessary? I think the contrary. I think they'll pass legislation that makes unions more powerful, perhaps, to the detriment of labour itself. The NDP is great for this country Federally until they get there, offering direction that this country needs to keep corporate greed in check, great as provincial parties in fixing minimum wages and work weeks for labour, but maybe not so great as a Federal power.

Again, it comes down to passing legislation that sets standards for this country and meeting those standards with goverment run programs, if necessary, to see that they are met. And, for as faulty as the Libs and PC's have been from everything from bad budgets and GST to gun control, we owe certain credit in part to those in goverment that made good choices, as flawed as our country is.

Cont.
Our federal governments will decide through ignorant neglect or wise care, whether or not we'll have any money to spend for social programs 20 years from now, or whether or not we'll send our sons and daughters into the next U.S. led war, or whether or not we'll decide to become world leaders on the environment, poverty or anything else that will take vision and substance or a lack there of to produce.

So while all I hear is criticisms of you don't like any names mentioned because they aren't born here or didn't come here as children as was Yasmins case, or to rich or old or young, or corporate, or Liberal... is there actually one person you can think of that you like as a Lib leader and more importantly the highly probable future leader of this country?

Do you seriously think the NDP will form the next government and support "only" your party until they get elected like Murray Dobbin does, or anyone else who flies one party flag only, or will you at the very least concede that the flag we should be flying above all of them in this country is the red and white maple leaf and look at it from all sides, besides the NDP? Not saying that you don't consider yourself as a Canadian, here, an its not my intention to get inflammatory here, but acedemically speaking, its not a bad pursuit to look at it from all political angles, especially the most futuristically probable ones.

In some ways you are right. I like the Liberals in a minority government, but not a majority because they are federalist and centralized in terms of power... but there are still too many conflicts of interest. I don't like them unopposed.

I like seeing the NDP, even the Bloc holding the balance of power. And I detest Harper and most of his "values". To me he's just another Mulroney U.S. sellout and contrary to what some of us think, we still have somethings that aren't theirs. Our banks, our insurance, our public healthcare, for starters. So, until all parties have improved upon their leadership, their platforms, which I believe the Greens to be superior in most ways except budgetary, needing more definition, bring on minorities and better candidates. With this scenerio, you, I'm sure would agree, is the most ferile ground for the Greens and NDP. And, one last time, at least for the sake of acedemia... who's your pick(s)?

colin, way up thread, asked--

"Isn’t this the report where the investigators declined the invitation to inspect the camp firsthand? When I do an investigation I always visit the scene, even if I doubt everything the guide is telling me."

The answer is yes.

But do you have any idea why?

Because one of the stipulations of the gaulieters was that they were not allowed to interview any (ie. none, nada, zip) of the prisoners.

Therefore, they chose another route by interviewing those who had been illegally held and subsequently released.

Regardless, it is very difficult to discredit the actual evidence in the report which can be found through the link provided by Mr. Beers above.

"Is the NDP going to pass legislation that will make unions unnecessary? Maybe legislation that will make them even more so, and not every worker is happy to pay dues, by the way."

I really can't fathom this line of thinking. The right to organize has been around longer than the NDP. The ILO has a few words to say aboutsuch things as well. Folks have always rebelled against unjust events. Way back when folks running looms shoved their wooden shoes into the works . And really way back when woment struck a deal with their husbands, you go to war, you are cut off. so the worker wants their rights and will fight for them.

Most thinking folks have figured it out. It's easier, cheaper and faster to negotiate with representatives of a group rather than individually. The way I hear it, the NDP have voted to stop accepting Union blocks of money and ask that business does the same. That's the sort of legislation the NDP wants.

I was in two national unions and both constitutions forbid union money going to any political party. What the member did on his own was her or his business and who she or he voted was the members business not the shop steward.
As for paying union dues, well who wants to pay taxes or fees of any kind. The union reprs have to eat too , the research has to be done, the negotiating teams have to be off work at the time so that's where the union dues go.

This is like me saying that with the massive poverty staring us in the face as parts of our environment collapses and we run out of cheap energy that the NDP will get elected for sure as people finally wake up.

It won't happen. Anyone can read an opinion poll. And as the environment rises on the radar screen the big two parties will address it in their platforms. The Cons will promise to work with business in a manner that maintains our falling standard of living and the Libs will promise a new National Dream.

The Greens and the NDP will be marginalized in spite of them being the parties that have been pushing the environment.

The CCF did not get elected during the depression in the election after Bennet. Canadians went with King. The CCF did get elected in Saskatchewan later but post-war the Libs simply adopted much of the CCF platform. In essence the Libs of the 1920's and the Libs of the 1960's were more different than the CCF and Libs of the 30's and 40's.

In 60 years people will still vote for the Libs and Cons, they'll just be a lot greener than they are now.

And isn't that the point of the NDP and Greens existence? To keep those issues on people's radar's right now?

If the NDP didn't exist the Libs would be more right-wing than they are because their left flank would be secure and they'd move right to capture soft-Con voters.

Then you'd have the political situation in the US.

Assuming the Greens have any long-term future in Canada it will be as a generator of ideas that the two big parties can adopt if they see people like them.

DPL:
Even though your clip of mine was was taken out of context, the reality is that the NDP is heavily funded by unions. That's a fact. And while I also provided the need for unions in the exact same post, I don't see the need for union dues to promote unions in a way that is not so far off from a for profit corporation that lobbies government for their own special interests.

The question on NDP policies with unions isn't really all that clear, I might add. And for as much as you think unions don't get involved in provincial or federal politics, the Buzz Hargrove story is just the tip of the iceburg on how much the unions and NDP are in bed together, especially so on a federal basis.

Although labour needs an organization to dispute any bias from governments, especially governments that largely favor private corporations and NCC lead thinking which is to get rid of unions all together, I never said unions didn't have their place. And what is the unions place if a goverment comes in and gives them everything they want? What I did say, infatically, was that unions and goverments can overgovern or over bargain for labour, leading to extremes the other way, if left unchallanged, and maybe I'm wrong, but extremes aren't what this country truly wants.

Frank:
Did I ever say the Greens would get elected and form a government? What I did say is that the Greens have a superior platform when it comes to the environment, and that the local and global environment is getting worse, not better. Put two and two together, and yes, as you stated, they'll have a future, which is to put some green into the rest of the colors in politics, as the NDP does with social programs.

Brain, I'm not calling it an NDP sweep next time around.

And I am certainly not dumping on Yasmin Ratansi, who you must admit is not a headline grabber yet, if she ever will be.

The simple reality is she is a new Canadian and unless you go way back into Canadian history to someone like JA MacDonald, new Canadians simply don't get elected into leadership.

I see you mentioned Bob Rae, summed him up as a former NDPer and then wrote him off. You mentioned David Suzuki as a potential Liberal leader until it was pointed out he leans further to the left. Then his name became just a "joke" to you.

Perhaps Justin Trudeau will step up. Afterall, he is one of the few possible Liberals who isn't already tarnished by the company they have kept or the deeds they did.

As for my distain for the wealthy. That isn't necessarily true. It's just that few of those financial elites are ever going to worry very much for people who aren't.

That is based on two centuries of this country being run by financial elites, but then I'm still willing to be proven wrong.

Now, as for the NDP enacting harsher labour law to ensure the prosperity of unions, please, please, please Brain, don't try silly comments like that. It makes you look absolutely foolish.

I realize not every worker is happy to be paying dues, but, you know what Brain, they at least had a vote on whether or not to join a union.

I can tell you there are one hell of a lot of workers who would love to be able to pay union dues in exchange for the improved working conditions and benefits, but governments of most stripes do everything they can to ensure employers can avoid unions, thus workers don't even get the chance to decide if they want to pay dues.

Frankly, if the Greens ever formed government, it wouldn't surprise me to see some of the more strident greenies trying to blame resource sector workers for the environmental messes the corporate sector is allowed to make thanks to corporate largesse with political donations.

By the way, the average union wage runs about $22.50 an hour in Canada compared to $18 an hour for non union. That does not reflect the additional benefits. So even if union workers are paying two percent dues, which is the high end, it might cost them 45 cents an hour leaving them about $4 an hour ahead of the non-dues payers. Again, that's ignoring the superior benefits etc., union side.

As far as governments changing labour codes to help their private sector contributors, which government has not done that?

Hey, that's a serious question and I would love to have an answer from you on it.

Look at BC where the Libs gutted the Labour Code in its first term and is now proposing even more changes because the private sector still isn't satisfied.

The federal Liberals have done nothing with the federal labour code despite decades of calls to moderize it. We still have the same ugly rules applying as we had when the Yellowknife Giant gold mine confrontation took place almost two decades ago.

Both the Conservative and Liberal governments aided and abetted the beating up and dismantling of democratically elected seamans unions in the'40s and '50s, which (is it irony?) paved the way for the expansion of Canada Steamship Lines.

History is full of examples of governments catering to the whims of the corporate sector over workers in Canada.

The only time I saw one of the elite step up to the plate was when a young Pierre Trudeau took on the cause of Quebec's asbestos workers way back when I was a little boy.

That's back in the days when even the Catholic church publicly sucked from the corporate teat while condemning their own faithful as ungrateful commies.

Now that the NDP is cutting its direct financial ties to union, are you going to demand the Greens no longer chase corporate dollars?

Frankly, from what I see in the Liberal party, I don't know why you are dumping on Sheila Copps. In my estimation she has more integrety than most.

As with many people unfamiliar with the workings of unionized labour, the brain(-less one) is emphatically flawed in fundamental understanding of how collective bargaining works. By trotting out the typical pap heard time and time again from Fraser Institute-esque sources - "Unions have had their day", "We needed unions in the 'old' days, but they have outlived their usefulness" - the (purported) brain shows how insidious and pervasive the anti-union propoganda has become nowadays. The brain (dead one) illustrates how easy it is for the neo-con agenda to further our headlong rush toward third world status in our wages, working conditions, and benefits.

On the topic at hand, I suggest Brian Tobin as the man needed.

Brian Tobin said two weeks ago he would not run.

Brain, I'd recommend you read tommymoore's criticism of your anti-union stance very clearly.

I think it nails your problem to the wall, lack of understanding.

Unions lobby government for better labour legislation to help workers. Who the f*ck do you think would help working folks if the unions were not there to pressure politicians to live up to the promises they make before getting elected.

Try David Emerson as an example of what you get when you listen to politicians' promises without some other means of getting on in life?

Give us a break on unions seeking profits pal. You simply don't or won't see past your own bias.

Unions use dues to bargain, to lobby for better laws, to organize other workers and to pay for the staff who toil on workers' behalf.

Many unions actually have legislation so that when money in specific funds are acheived dues are cut to reflect the lessened need.

I know. I helped draft such info in my union and I was rank and file, not some jet-setting exec padding his expense accounts. Your problem is you buy the line that people who join unions are hosers who can't chew gum and walk in unison.

Tell me when the last time was we had an Enron type union scandle.

What are you talking about when you suggest they aren't far from corporations?

Please elaborate because as tommymoore implies you sound like a recent turnip truck passenger with that line.

Forget the Fraser Institute. You sound like a front man for the National Citizens' Coalition.

I might remind you unions spent a good amount of money fighting the NCC and Stephen Harper when it was trying to ram through the right to buy elections.

Are you going to tell me that unions don't have a right to do that.? According to who besides yourself?

Now, as far as Buzz Hargrove is concerned, he isn't my favourite labour leader, but from my read, he is certainly as astute as any of the potential Liberals you have mentioned to lead this country.

Of course he would face a tough challenge. Even some people who think they are on the left would vote for anybody but a union man.

You can educate but you can't eliminate stupidity.

Quit counting your daily stock market earnings long enough to listen to the background noise.

That's where the real fights are played out, ignore or missed by the media, but far more important than whether Paul Martin can again have his ego stroked for yet another dismal run for his entitlements.

Tommymoore, Tobin is a little wiser these days and has stated a flat no to running for the leadership.

So maybe it's back to Belinda and her daddy's billions after all.

CCF first elected Saskatchewan provincial government on June 15, 1944 - 9 days after D day

pllleeease; take up where pearson and trudeau left off? we were rescued from those those two naive ideologues just in time. maybe.

Jtothemfk asked “what's wrong with lawyers in parliament, ranbir? among other things, i believe it's a law-making institution. so maybe elaborate? or was that just a "ha! ha!" bait?”

Lawyers are trained in law school to understand written-laws (as written by humans) and not to understand the actual issue itself. For example the fisheries Act may theoretically have been designed to protect fish and there should also be an abundant population of theoretical fish in the Atlantic Ocean right? To design an appropriate law you need to understand fish biology, oceans, etc…By the way fish farms are legal in Canada according to lawyers and the Fisheries act although according to most science journals they destroy the eco-system.

Much has been made about the fact that MP Ted Menzies doesn’t speak French and is parliamentary secretary to la francophonie. What does the new minister for fisheries Loyola Hearn know about fish?

Tommymore:
As usual, you are a man who is rude, and wrong. I, once again, dis-appreciate dummies like yourself putting words in my mouth. I can't think of anyone who has been more against the NCC on this site, and to quote myself:

"If any entity should be looking out for labour rights, it should be goverment to begin with, not unions. But again, unions are needed because goverments change and policies change with them. And if a goverment that is union sponsored gets into power, what happens then?"

To offer more clarity, if needed, Governments are supposed to set the legal standards for this country. If they don't, there needs to be organizations political or otherwise to challenge them. Hence, UNIONS ARE NEEDED!

BS talk about collective bargaining and all the rest... did I ever once say that this country or any other doesn't need unions? Nope! You both have to be on the pipe for me to think so and maybe worse, for me to think that I would in any way, in any political thread have supported what Harper has stood for with his NCC union busting, crap and U.S. born ways. I don't know how else to put it. The both of you can put your negative Bull crap thoughts somewheres else.

Nevertheless... and you should both be listening, and listening good. I raised a point that could very well threaten the ability of the NDP to ever form a government, if either of you have an open mind that can suppress any opinions that aren't your own. You know, if either of you are smart enough to put yourselves in anyone elses shoes besides your own. Here it is.

The NDP party is, once again, heavily funded by the unions of this country, at least federally, and no less, heavily vocally supported. If the NDP ever becomes a viable choice to form a government, can neither of you see the conflict of interest brewing as a result of a government employing 100's of thousands of unionized workers across this country on all levels, and at the same time being union financed or lobbied?

If the NDP is to stand a chance in hell of governing, they will have to go the way of the Libs and Cons in turning down the same money that has gotten them this far. You can run down my intelligence all you want, but the average person can see it. The average person knows it. Why the average person doesn't know the Harper NCC connection is another story, and its media bought and paid for, I might add, but the average person knows about the NDP and unions because it goes way back.

You see, DPL got it right. the NDP has no choice but to refuse this dough if they want to wear that crown... which they haven't done

Since Harper challenged political party contribution transparency laws and won, any party can recieve money from anyone and lie about where its coming from and not get caught, including the NDP's future denial of union funded support true or not... along with Con U.S. oil and church checks and so on.

Thing that strikes me funny is that you both are assuming that every single union worker supports and votes for the NDP. Wake up! They don't! And union dues are ending up in party coffers! Alberta has six figures of unionized workers that voted for the Cons. OK? Hate to say the NCC is right at any time, especially when this province is so brainwashed to begin with, but in this province, its a proven fact. At some point, if the NDP has a hope of ever forming a government, they'll have to stop taking union money or risk losing any opportunity of forming a government and quite frankly, thanks to Harper, even if they decide to go this route, the Cons can accuse them of taking union money whether they decide to or not, and accusation is enough now, regardless of how hypocritical the Cons truly are.

So for as much as I like the NDP for the social programs they've pushed and had passed in government (and I love 'em for public healthcare, and EI and Welfare and daycare and on and on, I really do), major union hurdles still remain.

And Allan:

Thanks for finally offering a name. Justin Trudeau is young, but time will tell.

Secondly, I take full acception of your remarks concerning my stocks and such. Your hypocritical words:

"As for my distain for the wealthy. That isn't necessarily true. It's just that few of those financial elites are ever going to worry very much for people who aren't."

"Quit counting your daily stock market earnings long enough to listen to the background noise"

You have absolutely no idea what I've gone through in my lifetime either way. You know not what I've lost or gained and who I've left behind or had leaving me behind, right or wrong. You have absolutely no right to judge me in this way or say such trash, quite frankly, as if money or success ensures ill will to begin with on my part or anyone elses, and if you gun me that way again, we just aren't going to get along. Ever. In fact, I'm looking for an apology on this one.

And thirdly, I liked Buzz. He at least called a spade a spade with Harper, something that was missing from anyone else, even Martin. All Martin had to do to get elected when Buzz said "anyone but Harper at all costs", was drop Harpers past presidential NCC website. Thats all Martin had to do. He didn't. And anyone who cares to look... again...

http://www.morefreedom.org/

The links in this one are definitely worth looking into.
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2003/n27ja03a.htm
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2003/n27ja03a.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/nation...izens-coalition
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/15/ncc031015

This last one is my favorite. It gives a comprehensive history of what the NCC has done in Canadian Federal politics since 67.

http://www.stephenharpersaid.ca/pdf/ncc.pdf#search='www.national%20citizens%20coalitio n'

The last one needs to be cut and pasted into the internet site adress to surf and its worth it.

Fourthly. If Bob Rae wants to run as a Liberal leader, great! I like him! Still think he would be a better NDP leader. Jack isn't without flaw.

Fifthly. David Emerson. Go to any one of the threads concerning Emerson, and you'll find me there in spades. Just click onto tyee political articles and its all there. When you're done, if you want to somehow bash me for loving him so much, by all means... Be a fool. Again.

sixth. There has been no one more outspoken against Harper and his NCC than me on this site in any political thread, so, what can I say. You leave me with no choice but to form an ever growing low opinion of yourself. You and Tommyknocker both, have past grudges or something. Get over it.

Here we go again. David Suzuki. He won't run until he's old, if at all. Half joking, isn't a joke. I said he was electable didn't I? I said it as half jokingly because it is the Liberal leadership after all. Here I'm a Green, and you've continually dumped on Harris as if its nice and polite. You've never never met the man, just wrote him off because he was once a PC more than 2 decades ago and just like the rest, detest him because he isn't an NDP supporter like you.

Did I dump on Sheila Copps? I like her. I don't see the Libs wanting her in leadership roles, but... I still like her. Not sure why you think I'm dumping on her, but I'm not sure why you think any of the crap you think anymore, Allan. What I'm becoming sure of is that I just don't like someone who see's life from one degree out of 360 and calls their way as better than all the rest. How old are you... 54? Grow up.

The Brain [dead] writes:

Well, braindead, in BC union funds account for less than 11% of the NDP's funding. The BC lieberals on the other hand receive over 70% of their funding from corporate tax deductable slush funds. But, the unrelenting MSM picture is one of unions dominating the NDP finances. Don't let anything stop you from believing what you think is the truth.

So, the NDP position on refusing union funds is a play to improve their standing in the MSM, where the NDP will never get unbiased coverage anyway. That is not smart, that it dumb. The lieberals and neocons are laughing all the way to the corporate piggybank.

And braindead also writes:

Yup, that will help us all. Let's have a third party that sucks on the corporate teat and represents the interests of the elite. Let's pretend that we represent working people while the demand for money in our system calls the tune. Geez, makes sense to me.

Allan writes:

Or anyone's favourite union leader, for that matter Allan. Except, of course, for within the CAW. I have written elsewhere in the Tyee that everyone needs a union. It is just unfortunate that unions have been built on the corporate structure with a singleminded drive to entrench elites (read Board's of Directors and CEO's) and increase revenue flows (read protecting and expanding income sources). As the North American auto industry dies a noisy death, Buzz has been busy raiding other unions to gain members (read captive acolytes) and centralize revenues (read dues). Buzz would be the first one screaming if the CAW was being raided.

The answer is for individual union members to take back control of their unions. I believe that will happen at the same time as individual shareholders take control of corporations.

Allan also writes:

Unfortunately, there is likely more than a little truth to that comment. Money is the key. Big Daddy Stronach built an empire using Canada's corporate welfare system and now lives offshore so he doesn't have to pay taxes in Canada. His spawn, BS (nice ring to it, eh?) plays out the born to privilege and entitlement role very well. BS did finish high school, and went to university for one year. At least Paul Martin got a degree before collecting his entitlement from the public purse. But, BS is so smart that she now runs a couple of multi-million dollar companies. Daddy installed her in his firms, of course. What do you suspect the real business people in those enterprises think about working for Daddy's kid? But she is really really smart and wants to help average Canadians, eh?

little elliot writes:

Another deep, meaningful thought from the depths of little elliot's intellect. little elliot, there are a variety of opinions on this forum. There is a great deal of back and forth on the opinions expressed. Once in a while a well crafted thought may change someone's opinion.

But, for that to happen, little elliot, you first have to actually have a thought. I am not holding my breath.

brain: there's something implicit in the amount of precious space you take up on this thread, for the sole purpose of making yourself look good.

Sorry to have to say that, but you're knocking people who actually are trying to contribute to the discussion. Drop the pejoratives. Stick to the points at issue. You wanna be loved? Then make your points (limit: 4) then shut the heck up. Otherwise, there's the immutable Law of Unintended Consequences at work here, forcing readers . not to love the puffery.

Brain
Just a quick question re the following from an earlier post of yours:

.

Can you give me a citation for this case? How high did the decision go, is it subject to appeal, etc?

Brain, the more you type the more apparent your ignorance becomes. While some on this site posting comments strive to put forward valid points, you seem to cram your own foot further and further into your mouth. Look up a few words in the dictionary please: "concise" - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=concise
and "succinct" - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=succinct

Your never-ending diatribes are fraught with meandering illogic and irrational irrelevancies. Your links are passé; we have all been long familiar with Harper's NCC connections. Your harping on the "big bad labour" link the NDP supposedly represents has been shown to be flawed, and you continue to display a lack of real insight and..um, brains. Here's the thing: when a poster like fiat lux graces this site with comments, I find myself raptly reading and re-reading his words of wisdom. When I encounter your rambling and lengthy examples of syntactically and grammatically challenged maunderings I find it to be like wading through mud. It infuriates me that you use the handle "the brain" when it has become more and more obvious to all here that "lame brain" would be more apt.

Brain, I'll keep this short.

You have shown more ignorance in this past post than anyone since Ron E left to find happiness.

You spew misinformation with reckless disregard.

Unions and union workers have the right to spend their money as they see fit regardless of what some puffed up nom-de-plume presumes based on his own full on biases.

Great that you see the National Citizens Coalition as a menace. Unions and union workers have been fighting that outfit for years and years, long before you took it up as a cause celebre in your tightly boxed little mind.

You may call it 360 degree viewing, but I'd suggest your seemingly endless search through garbage cans, under rocks and behind the veil of wishful thinking for the perfect Liberal leader is a bit much.

Here's a quick place to look instead. Read the Gomery Inquiry reports and if a name is in there strike it from your list. That'll shorten your blather and allow something closer to rational discussion to take place.

Oh and beleive me about the background noise Brain. If you ever pay real close attention to all those little noises that just seem to slip by you might learn just how far off track or, is that in the box, that you are.

G West: It was posted.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/15/ncc031015

Wallace:
As long as there is a lack of transparency concerning organizations political or otherwise, anyone can say or accuse groups takeing money from other groups and thats all it will be. Accusations. Same goes with organizations who take money from unions, corporations and controversial contributers and deny it. There will never be any proof now either way on a federal scene. The most we have to go by is the numbers now on the final take. It would do you all well to note that the Cons raised twice as much money as the Libs during the last federal election. It didn't come from the little guy.

And do you remotely think I support Campbell in any way? I would have to be as you ignorantly suggest, "brain dead". And, while you justify the NDP taking money from unions, I don't. Did they need this precious 11% provincially? Its a matter of principle to those who pay their dues to have unions represent their labor interests, not their political ones.

Hate to break it to you, but two wrongs don't make a right. And that percentage sounds low provincially and much higher federally, especially historically. And what, do any of you remotely think I approve of corporate donations? I don't like donations from organizations of any kind to political parties. Its called "conflict of interest".

BC Mary:
Oh, I'm sure its obvious that I'm not "hogging" the thread for "the love". If you don't like it, next time you come up to "brain comments", just skip it. No one's forcing you to read it. Interesting that if I came onto this thread and bragged up the NDP instead of talking about their greatest federal electorial flaw, (as I did with the other parties) you wouldn't be "throwing stones".

Did I not talk about the flaws of the rest of the parties? Harpers NCC endlessly, I might add, Liberal lack of leadership and I mention names of any kind suggesting the importance of taking a leadership look regardless of party affiliation, and there's Allan, smearing dirt on every one...

Try being in the shoes of a Green. We vote knowing our candidates aren't going to get elected, that the most we can do is try to get more environmental concerns put on other party platforms, but at the end of the day, we have no choice but to look seriously at who is going to govern this country, and regardless of how we vote, our opinions, especially well thought out ones, count! What I get for voicing opinions is shit on, quite frankly, from those who don't like any opinions other than their own, and guess what. I am of the opinion that people like that in my mind suck rocks. Its not difference of opinion that gets me hot, here. Its the way you all so rudely deliver it.

It's interesting how people think these days. Most of us who belong in churches believe their organization is often just a little bit better than most. And their union, or their company, or their corporation, or their political party, or their nation, or their race, or their sex or their religion, or their educational background, or family or status and on and on it goes. How very dry. So very common.

Try wearing the shoes of labor that isn't represented by a union, or the shoes of a minority and you'll all see a part of my angst. You are all no different than anyone else living "in the box".

Cont.
My top pick for the Liberals was the first unknown name I suggested, just so you all know. Ethel Blondin Andrew. Does she have a hope or prayer? Not in ten lifetimes. Money talks in this world. To bad she's just a little bit to off color for most, and its to our shame.

And since you NDP'ers have been given the name of a liberal, it doesn't matter if she's a minority or not, or a saint, she isn't NDP. Sad, isn't it? I don't find much difference between the BC Mary's or Allans or Wallaces with any other prejudiced conservative in this given context. "Our way is the only way". I'm glad the majority of the rest of the NDPers out there don't spill out this cult crap like this.

And I won't be surprised if you "quote" something out of context and try to make me the fool to support your own NDP only and forever agenda's. And by the way... did the Cons get a minority elected? Guess the voters who support Cons don't support minorities. Unsurprizing. You all should take a better look at who your real enemies are. It's not the so called rich fat cats like myself who for some reason have nothing better to do.

And while you all bash the Liberals, you can remind yourselves of who it was that dreamed up 1.75 per vote that filled the NDP coffers enough to not need organized donations. And, you can remind yourselves of who has spent billions already fighting the NCC. Its not the Libs. Its isn't the NDP. Certainly the CRAP. Its the court justice systems of Canada. Its the biggest ongoing fiancial drain scandal of all, if any of you cared to look.

Tommymore:
Couldn't agree with you more on Ed Deak. Maybe when I've lived another 38 years, I'll keep it short and sweet like Ed but until then, you'll just have to wade through it and run me down, because that's the kind of individual you are. And, its highly predictable.

Allan: And if the Alta unions started donating money to the Cons, how would you feel? And don't give me this "Im a union worker, so I vote NDP" stuff. Not saying the majority of union workers don't vote NDP. I'm saying a large minority vote somewhere else and since the unions are supposed to represent minorities... you know, at least ideologically... can you not it in principle?

And where's my apology? In fact, I think I need two now, noting that you compared me to Ron as well. And why? Right... I said something that you didn't agree with and, like I say, you got personal with insults. Now thats more like Ronnie.

Thanks for the link, that's what I thought. It was an Ontario lower or appeal court decision. I thought there was another similar case that went to the Supremes more recently than that one. Guess you don't know anything about it, eh?

You should say it, they don't. Simple math exercise... count the number of union memberships, count the number of NDP voters, come to the realization that many of those NDP voters aren't in a union and voila, most unions workers vote Lib or Con.

Frank

Certainly agree with your assessment of voting patterns among unionized workers - that's always been my feeling too. Do you think, given those facts and the changes in election expense financing, that the close affiliation between union leadership and the NDP is likely to be a thing of the past any time soon? Of course, that's already started here in BC at the Provincial level.

I wonder if there isn't a stronger connection nowadays between women voters and progressive attitudes?

GW, yep, I think the "NDP" will be undone and it'll be a return to the way things were under the CCF. There will be no formal marriage.

For one, as you referenced, the NDP doesn't need the money. The union contributions aren't big anyway.

Two, the votes don't get delivered so why take a black eye over it when cutting ties gives you the moral high ground and lets you attack the Lib and Con connections to the corporate sector with impunity.

How about federally with the NDP Frank? What do you think?

And G West, I haven't followed any challenges concerning appeals to reverse organization party contribution rulings from Harper VS the government of Canada, but Gag laws are constantly being challenged, the latest coming from Canfor. This link also offers more clarity on what you are looking for.

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2002/news_de02/n17de02a.htm

Frank

That pretty much sums up my thoughts too.

You didn't comment about the male/female split, though and I'm curious to know what you think. I believe women are much more likely to vote NDP now than men are. And they're much more likely to be interested in social justice issues too. I think Carol James, if she can be successful at the Provincial level in confronting Campbell's blatant pro-business philosophy, will do progressive causes a lot of good. There's sure not much leadership coming from Saskatchewan any more!

James got some bad advice over the pensions thing last fall but seems to be doing much better now.

Brain, of course it's the rest of the world that has it wrong. How could we have missed your wisdom?

Brian, I'd suggest I know a little more about labour, union or non-union than you ever will even if you live to be twice Ed Deak's age.

I have never said 'I am a union worker so I vote NDP'.

Your problem is that you read someone' comment and then neatly package that person into a tight little slot with all kinds of preconcieved notions based on a statement or two.

And you call your self broad minded.

I do vote NDP, I support unions, but I am not a union member currently. I am working for myself.

I have run a business and I voted NDP then, I have organized workers into unions and I have done a whole lot of other things you wouldn't really understand much about and I still vote NDP.

It truly is unfortunate that you are about the only person who hasn't clued into the fact that you speak out of a tightly confined little box, where everything must be neat, tidy and follow a course of action that is predetermined according to your view of the world.

My world's a little more complicated than that, buddy. It's full of chaos, contradiction and the drones of those who simply won't stop chatering away about things they don't understand but feel a need to explain.

No apologies for speaking what I believe is the truth, as ugly as you may find it. At least now you've confirmed your fat-cat status so we can get beyond that.

Now, as for your obsession over who the next Liberal leader might be, let me suggest you give Tyee readers a break for a while from putting forth the name of every dog catcher between Gander and Gold River as possibilities.

Here's a quick means of cutting through the chafe. Read the Gomery Inquiry reports and tick off every name (most are Liberals or fed by Liberals) that appears in the reports.

You can pretty well use it as a benchmark for those who shouldn't try a leadership bid.

As for the NCC, who in hell do you think has been financing the fight against that oufit?

Look at the intervener lists in those court fights.

Again you show your ignorance. The courts in Canada don't launch challenges against groups such as the NCC unless other parties bring forth arguments, evidence and a pack of money and lawyers to start the fight.

Much of the money over the years spent fighting Harper and the NCC has been union money, from union dues, which in my humble opinion was well spent defending the political and labour rights of union members.

Here's another surprise for a guy I thought had some real education. Fighting labour issues is political. Taking political action is one of the best means of fighting for labour.

Go back to school Brain. You obviously were a truent( at least in mind), if you missed such basics as why unions were formed.

Brain, your choice of links is telling.

Aren't you concerned that union dues may have been spent to create that NUPGE website and all its political messages?

Anyway, despite the chuckle it gives me to see you running to a union for accurate information, it ought to perhaps clue you in a wee bit that what I have been saying about those opposing the NCC is correct.

Good to see you are expanding your vision a little though.

The days of accepting union donations are probably numbered federally too but Ontario is a special case isn't it?

Yep, I agree with all that.

Frank: My thoughts exactly as well.

Allan: Nice self projection. You fit the very critique you describe. And lets see... I made 39 grand last year, I'm so rich and fat. And when I mention a name from Montgomery, please let me know. And once again, the Federal government has spent 10 figures "defending" legislation in the courts against NCC challenges. With gun registries alone, it topped 180 mil in court costs, with the major cost coming from NCC challenges. While unions have spent millions defending themselves (not to be confused with defending the public) in media and courts from the NCC, it pales in comparison to what the Government of Canada has spent defending Canada's interests. Finally, I fail to see how I could describe a former union organizer, member and life long NDP'er as anything other than a union man. What, when you look at a retired railroader or farmer you calling them a retired senior and not a retired railroader or farmer?

What people did in their lives happens to have something to do with who they are, smart guy. And if you can't apologize for rudeness, lets say that I never expected otherwise to begin with. There are ways of presenting assumed correct ideologies. Offering opinions and offering ignorant slander happen to be two different things. It would be wise in the future to know the difference.

G West:
Off topic (as usual for me) but Saskatchewan is more complicated. My feeling is that Lorne Calvert is selling "opportunity" to the U.S. in the hopes of developing resources with foreign investment due to a Harper Government in power, as well as using this as a future bargaining chip to get more fairness with equalization from future fed governments.

Most of us are pretty much agreed that Canadians should be developing their own resources and that tax dollars from corporate profit should be going North, not south. Hence, the NEP was ideologically sound, except the Liberals badly mismanaged it, and the NCC back in the day smeared it majorly, along with major U.S. oil corporate money behind them, and the NEP was effectively killed by U.S. propaganda spun out by the NCC, combined with Ottawa's refusal to go out their way to see Alta residents control their own resources. Historically, Alta has been Reform, Alliance and Con ever since. The same western alienation could solidify the same way in Sask.

If the Feds (certainly not under Harper) could find a way for Saskatchewan residents to develop oil resources through provincial crown corps or heavily encourage Saskatchewan residential investment into these same resources, I'm a dreamer but thats how I feel Sask resources should be managed, along with Alta, if their brains aren't to badly washed.

The big problem with Saskachewan is that there isn't enough capital within sask residents or government coffers to do as I suggest, so federal capital would be needed and since the history with Fed equalization to Sask is dismal, Sask will remain Conservative until something is done.

Is Lorne a threat or bluff with U.S. trade missions? He's both depending on how one looks at it and if the Feds are to ever hope of going Lib or NDP in Sask federally, these parties will have to cooperate to come up with a plan that puts ownership into the hands of the average Sask (and Alta) resident. This means opposing NCC media propaganda through exposing their agenda, combined with Fed capitol and Sask crown corp start ups, along with major incentives through grants and loans to encourage Sask residents to develop resources privately with junior oil corp startups. I don't see any other solutions at present than this, but if a Lib/NDP coalition is strong enough, it could be done, with both parties becoming much stronger if successful.

And I'm a dreamer. And an email to Gary Marasty and Ralph with such suggestions still might be worth the while. I think the rest of Canada might even go for it, but it has to be presented without flaw to the public on an ongoing basis after a shift in power.

Allan: Regarding your last post, once again, did I ever say we don't need unions? Did I ever say we don't need social programs? Did I ever say we don't need federally regulated daycare, or EI, or social assistance, or public healthcare, or any other program that the NDP has introduced? Did I ever say that unions are a bad thing, especially for government workers in this country? Nope.

Oh, I mentioned union dues, because I hear complaints about them, more than anything. Do I understand unionions have expenses? Yup! Just don't see why a certain expense must be to donate to political parties.

What I said was that we need to think outside of the box in picking leaders for all parties, never mind the Libs, to look at who is governing, who the threats to this country really are, and what principles must be followed for the NDP to be successful.

Naturally, if it involves unions to stroke their checks elsewhere, certain people might get offended, but I just can't in principle, agree with any organization be it a church group, union, corporation, group of corporations, especially from another nation, financially support our political parties on any level. To do so would be hypocritical, having double standards. Can you at least see my angst against this?

"The question on NDP policies with unions isn't really all that clear, I might add. And for as much as you think unions don't get involved in provincial or federal politics, the Buzz Hargrove story is just the tip of the iceberg on how much the unions and NDP are in bed together, especially so on a federal basis. "

This conversation has moved a long way from ex Justice Abour and her being drafted for Liberal leader. I don't beleive she would want the job, she move3d from the Supreme Court to do that she wanted to do, work in Human Rights

But to keep on the NDP Union theme brought up by folks other than myself.

The unions that through their constitutions decide to use part of their funds to support a party got there by a democratic vote. The ones I was involved in did not go that route.
Sure lots of union memebr4s try to convince their brothers and sisters to vote for certain parties.
I do believe the NDP in BC have a policy and are trying to get legislation in place to prevent union money or business money. That policy came out of a provincial convention. NO I wasn't there but I can read.
They can count and as one person mentioned, all union members certainly don't blindly support or vote NDP.

I believe the federal wing of the NDP is attempting similar legislation. Until that time, any party would be simply dumb to refuse money from folks with the same philosophy that the party believes in. Folks money was given to emerson who got elected and before the celebration was over crossed the floor to the cons. The voters in that case worked for the guy and he worked for himself.

One wonders what Mr. Harpers party would do without business funding, or the liberals for that matter.
I expect John Reynolds to make the senate a couple of days before Harper has to do what he has said he would do, only accept senate folks the voters want. Some folks lie, politicians often lie a lot

"Some folks lie,politicians often lie a lot".

I have never been able to classify all the definitions for liars...but when it come to politicians,there is only one definition that i have heard time after time...PROFESSIONAL LIARS.

and that's something i think MADAME ARBOUR want's to stay away from...from all that i have read and heard...she is ONE of the few ELITES that really wants to HELP CHANGE THE WORLD.

and that she has more common goals for the common good,speaks volumes to the trust others show in her....YOU DON'T GET THIS POSITION AT THE UNEMPLOYMENT CENTRE !!!

So , we must give credit...where credit is due.
she is a Canadian...building a better place for ALL of us.

if ...she did get into politics as postulated...then i think we would really see change...IMHO

but i doubt she will dirty her hands(REPUTATION)

Frank:
Quite true. Ontario is a special case.
Understandme: You could be right.
DPL:
This has gotten away from the article. Its to some degree, my own fault. Any time anyone posts large amounts of "opinions" or ideologies, antagonists come out to counter (and unfortunately, offer no solutions otherwise, or any conduct that could be considered polite)
Some of us just never really had anything positive to say about the Liberals or their future and minimized the importance of the next leader to begin with, no matter what, under any circumstances. Its too bad these extremes exist, and its too bad that I feel it needs to be addressed. The rest is already history.

Brain
Both Saskatchewan and Alberta have the legal right to develop and exploit their natural resources and collect royalties. This was given to them by the terms of the Constitution Act of 1930 which remedied the situation prior to that which had treated Saskatchewan and Alberta differently in regard to natural resources relative to the provinces who had entered confederation prior to 1905.

My remark about Saskatchewan, which still has an NDP government of sorts, was meant to be read relative to my remarks about the current NDP opposition here in BC.

G West: Misunderstood you. While its true that Saskatchewan has turned pro business with a for sale sign on the provinces resources, the key problem I believe in Sask (and to a much lesser degree in Alta) is capitol to develop their resources. So, while the provinces have the right under such agreements to develop them, Sask in particular might not have the capital and this means federal help. The feds have the money and if they put some money down, I believe it could be a win win scenario, but only if they do it right as mentioned.

Gulp! Is the author really suggesting that Supreme Court appointments have fortituitously done so well in implementing the Liberal Party agenda, that they are now thereby qualified to be Liberal Prime Minister??? And then proceed to appoint candidates to the highest bench? Be very, very afraid....

brain
Don't disagree that capital is a problem - just think it was being better managed in Sask prior to the Devine years which more or less turned the whole program on its head - as you no doubt know.
I have other problems with the Calvert government - particularly the way it has addressed the rural/urban split - to the eventual detriment, I fear, of the whole province – that’s another question however. But then, as you know, I'm no fan of Ralph Goodale either, which you seem to be. I’d have much preferred to borrow the dollars to fund resource programs rather than surrender equity ownership to other jurisdictions – I don’t mind paying interest on provincial bonds if I can retain more input into the way growth happens. In the event, Saskatchewan has done almost nothing to ensure the viability of rural communities, the continued existence of the rail network and a system of country elevators and decent roads at the same time that it has concentrated almost all its efforts on urban growth and development

Percy
I think you have to see Mr Beers's article in the context that he’s someone who came here from the US and may not be quite as cognizant of the 'subtleties' of some of our Canadian idiosyncrasies relative to the ease with which Liberals and Liberal appointees have moved in and out of various appointed and elected positions. In the US, he'd likely have been more familiar with movements between business, government and the military that happen there whether the Democrats or Republicans are in power.

Brain, you still don't get it and it's your arrogance that is the blinder.

Unless you are a member of a union it is none of your business what that union does with it's dues. Plain and simple.

Don't give me this jive about being concerned about donations to political parties when you dump on the NDP's minor funding by some unions (which you do constantly). You never mention that both the Liberals and Conservatives get most of their money from corporations, far more in every way than the unions ever give the NDP.

Sure, and your best friend's a union member who whines all the time about the $10 a week in dues he pays on his $1,000-a-week-job, which would be a $800 a week job if it were non-union.

Hey, if I'm wrong about your friend then tell us what unions all these people are complaining about. It won't take long to find out the dues rates. Most are on file. So fire away and maye you can prove your claim.

Union members have all the power in the world to hobble unions if they have reason to believe their dues are being improperly used.

There are sections of the labour code in BC, (I haven't got it in front of me and it might serve you well to look it up pal, so go read the stuff on fair representation.

It doesn't take a whole lot to get a hearing in front of the BC Labour Board, and believe me it's hardly a union-friendly atmosphere down there with government appointees calling the shots and mean spirited, seedy looking labour relations lawyers lurking about waiting for the next crisis to walk in the door.

Unions are required to have constitutions spelling out all the processes for dues collection and spending, laying out the power structure, elections, motions, bylaws, conventions and virtually everything else.

Each member is given a copy of the union constitution. No one is left on their own as you imply to be abused and ripped off.

Again the arrogance because you simply don't give union members the credibility they deserve because you have already slotted them in as undeserving and, obviously, ripe for the picking by shady union men.

By the way, I am pro-union Brain. That is slightly nuanced from I am a union member or I am a union man. But it's easier to just slot people in eh? I'll clarify it further for you Brain. If I was paying dues to a union I would be a union member or even a union man, but I'm not.

It's like the guys who wonder down to their regular pew each Sunday like good Christians except they all know they're terrible sinners.

Again, you spew out your ignorance without an iota of reason, just simple Vancouver Board of Trade rhetoric.

Oh but then you've got advice for the NDP, how to be successful. Look, that party has always had a complete ban on corporate funding and has never taken in a majority of its funds from unions.

Now, if you have evidence to the contrary please produce it.

Also let me know when the Liberals Conservatives and Greens will ever adopt any such policy.

All three of the latter will still officially take blood money if it's available as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, who in hell do you think is paying the bills that you say the government of Canada is racking up over battles with the NCC?

It certainly wasn't Paul Martin's coin any more than it was mine or yours or anyone else.

As I said prior, you are obviously new to the decades long fight to stop the NCC's efforts to allow the buying of elections.

The gun legislation issue is simply a red herring by you to try to suggest you are really on top of the NCC's actions.

It's completely off topic in that we were discussing the NCC's efforts to influence election funding not it's efforts to ensure unregistered toys for rednecks.

Allan:
Perhaps its your arrogance that shows. When unions support political parties that supposedly represent and serve the public as a whole, it becomes every voters business. Historically, union donations haven't been minor, especially on a federal scene. Its been my contention with this whole "discussion". And I don't care how many bad examples you point out with corporations or lobbyists donating to the Libs or Cons, (which, by the way, was 2 to 1, Con to Lib this last election), two wrongs simply don't make a right! This is about principle, and no, I don't see corrupt examples as excuse for the NDP to follow suit. It's like saying "we must be evil to defeat evil". Sorry, pal. That just doesn't cut it with me.

I guess I have to parrot myself one more time... Yawn. I'm not a union buster, never implied they were corrupt (how would I know if they were, except maybe to buy political support through election contributions?) or not needed, never implied anything of the sort (til now). I did imply that there are complaints by some who feel that their dues are too high, but its only natural that anyone complain about money taken off a check. Trust me, the background noise is much louder when it comes to taxes taken off.

As a VOTER, I'm definitely implying a conflict of interest concerning unions financially contributing to any political party, just as it looks bad if corporations do it, church groups, and especially U.S. corp led groups like the NCC.

Is a welder who makes 500 plus a day going to complain about union dues? No. But a teacher who sees 20 bucks out of every 1000 taken off of each cheque might. And the only complaint I can muster about unions other than a certain element of pride that seems to come with bigger salaries from memberships, (but this again, is a common complaint as pride comes to any successes regardless, bad old human nature) is gender pay inequality with teachers.

That one is somewhat unexplainable. We live in a day and age where equality should be practiced when it comes time to cash the cheque, don't you think? And for that matter, those who work in non union banks (not sure if unions are even in banks at the moment, don't know everything but I believe they aren't) experience the exact same thing, so while good ole sexism exists with gender pay inequality "still" in some area's union or non union, it seems that the unions do have a habit of looking the other way with gender in certain area's of representation.

Nevertheless, we don't live in a perfect world. We've come a long way. How about all those who aren't a part of a union, don't have benefits, don't have any safetynets, less loan or job guarantee's, less anything. Are unions going to come in and negotiate higher returns for them if there isn't any extra money to support their efforts from employers who can't afford to? Highly doubtful.

Unions are in many ways, competitive, just as private corps are. This too, is a fact. If unions can't have dues supported or control wages with labor, they just don't come. But the moment a company shows black ink with large enough labor groups in a trade... suddenly the union comes around promising to negotiate for labor and why? Why do they come? To get stronger. To increase revenues and labour bases to be more competitive. To represent labours interests? Nice ideal, but in the final analysis, its about control and money just like all the rest, so this might be unsettling to someone like yourself who is "pro-union", but... in the end, that's what anything to do with money is about in the world of man since we invented it. For power. Control.

Allan: Cont.

Thing is, Allan. Ed Deak is way ahead of both of us. There is no need for excess capitol. A few might even argue that there is no need for money at all! What there is a need for, is mass organization, education and equality. And money is the one instrument that stands in the way of this happening.

But, upon closer examination, its not money that is our main problem. Sure, it gives easy access and fertile ground to Greed and corruption. But its the love of money and what it buys. Power. Control. And this belief, this goal is very fleeting, even if attained. Is money our problem? No. We are our problem. What we believe in, that small world of ours, thinking inside the box, the "back yard effect" if you want to call it that, is our problem. And as long as there is a good minority of us that will succeed at anyone elses expense, it will continue to remain so.

Until the war against the desire to succeed "at anyone else's expense" is fought, there will always be separate classes and status and the disparency of wealth, the very origins to the lust for Greed and pride. Those "have's" want more. Those who "have not", want rights. Is humanity evolved enough, or organized enough or educated enough to see the fruits to this eutopean pipe dream, to pursue and protect human rights? Not unless there is money in it. Not by a long shot. Maybe 2000 years from now. Until then, we'll have war, and oppression, poverty, damage to the environment, "unrepresented labour" and every other thing that we see that is ruining this world.

And one last thing. You should be asking who introduced and passed legislation such as third party campaign contributions in the first place. Gag laws. Social programs at a federal level besides the NDP. 1.75 a vote, so that the NDP party can break free of union support. And I know, they did this that and the other, I know, I know. But it hasn't been just the NDP that has been battling the NCC for all these years. Its been the Libs too.

And finally, I, like most other young and approaching middle age folk, have just begun to get involved in the uglier details of politics so its an easy call for you to say I'm new to it, but so what. Fresh blood is needed to stamp out these traitors don't you think?

In my own past, my interests were centered on Quebecs separation bluffs and East West divides. This has given way to what is making this threat becoming more increasingly real... an NCC sponsored federal government that want's to seriously do away with the decentralization of federal powers and that means get rid of unions along the way with RCMP, public healthcare, you name it.

And the relevence of this entire converation between you and I, if we can call it that? The relevence to this thread? Whatever leader the Liberals choose next is going to have to address every single thing we've just discussed. The one party that has had more battles and scrums with the NCC, and those who want to succeed at "anyone elses expense", has been the Liberal party of Canada (on a federal scene).

The NDP has had its share, but its the Libs that have passed the legislation that had made the difference to date (on a federal scene). You want to point your finger at arrogance. Try Campbell. And I'll join you on that one as well. Party names are only relevant now with history. Names don't mean much these day's compared to the leaders and individuals that make up the parties to begin with. The liberal name in BC is just another front name for corp sellouts.

G West:
I'm a farm boy from Sask. I watched small farms evaporate under Federal agenda's to incorporate large farms, short tracks evaporate, trucks beat up the roads, crow rates end, and Divine. What an inept crook. His government makes Montgomery look mickey mouse. Divine ran up 15 billion in debt in 10 years with two terms, starting in the black. Know all about it.

When smaller sized equipment wears out, I'm not so sure the small farm can survive without off farm income. Rurally, the pop base is declining and with it, so are votes. Calverts moves to spend money on cities is politically motivated.

And I am well aware of how Ralph voted against certain equalization payments, against representing his own province. The one reason why I support Ralph is not so much because I like him, but because he's capable of surprising me and Canadians trust his ability to produce or continue surplus's.

If Paul dropped dead from a massive heart attack tomarrow, Ralph would be one of the few in the know with this countries numbers. And, his ability to help Sask could be tremendous if he ever was elected leader, but I seriously believe they have 4 or 5 better choices than Ralph now that I've looked at the Lib roster of MP elects more closely and as I've said often, whats to stop the Libs from getting a leader from outside the party?

Those numbers are rather high, historically...

Have you ever thought of adjusting your policies to something that the majority of voters might support?

I thought not...

JUSTIN TRUDEAU!!!!!!
now i'm really laughing my ass off. he'd be eaten alive with those confused eyes and that dear in the headlight gaze. only guys like allan and wally-boy could get excited about him. nice guy though.

Brain, you continue to show your complete lack of understanding about unions.

It's as though you are trapped in a time capsule.

You blathering about unions sitting back and not representing workers in industry until the companies are making big profits, is typical of the general ignorance within our so-called educated population.

Do yourself a favour if you are going to spew more crap on unions and start reading a bit of labour history.

No, you won't find it in the Globe the Post or even in the Star. Go to your library and read real labour history.

You might start with some of Walter Stewart's books.

Until then quit embarrassing yourself and insulting an awful lot of hard working people.

hey brain; get your own website.

Allan:
Name a time when they came in pro bono. Er, lets be specific. Within the last 20 years.

Back to the subject of this thread, the possibility of the Federal Liberal Party attracting Mrs. (Ms?) Arbour into allowing her name to stand in the election of a new leader.

Originally, in my youth, I voted for the Liberals, primarily because of the popular notion that Trudeau was "cool". But, after several years of his brand of electioneering, and insistance that Canada needed a strong central Government, and chalked up huge deficits to pay for his follies, I switched to the Tories. I liked Joe Clark, was adamant his $.10 gas tax was badly needed, for deficit reduction, didn't work, he was gone, both as PM and s leader of the Tories. Still not liking the Liberals, I again supported Mulroney, for ONE term in office, but he too was too out of touch with the average Canadian, preferring to buddy up to big business, like Chrysler, while our farmers were suffering.

So, I've been an NDP'er ever since. I've not always agreed with them, but they are still the lesser of the other two evils, unless...........

Should the Liberals get Ms. (Mrs.?) Arbour to allow her name to stand for leader, I'm sure it would go a long way to cleaning up their tarnished name. From what I've read of her, she's no patsy for the Multi-National Corps., her rulings in the judiciary indicate she has the ability to be a middle of the road person, giving both sides to the left and right equal consideration. In my opinion, she would be a great asset to the Party, and a definite problem for the Harperites.

Don F.

Who mentioned David Suzuki. That man is atrocious. Talk with anyone who's worked with him professionally - He's very different from his on-screen Care Bear persona we've all grown up with. He has the kind of megalomaniacal ego that can only flourish in academia and in the activist hothouse where such gurus are surrounded by sycophants.

Besides, he can't deliver a political speech without berating Canadians for the wartime internment. He's flogged it at every discussion and rally I've ever been at in which he was speaker. He's not a big chip on his shoulder (perhaps with good reason - but it still doesn't enhance his leadership potential).

Not sure how good "celebrity" candidates will be in the big chair. It seems to me the qualities that make someone great in their endeavours are seldom those that contribute to a successful Ottawa career.

This may be off topic but ...

"We know that these are dangerous terrorists," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan "They are trained to provide false information."

By that yardstick who in government and its cheerleading media is not a dangerous terrorist?

Elliot: threads already old. Volume is down. Go flash some heat at Reynolds and make yourself useful.

Allan:

You know how many non union companies I've worked for in the patch alone that unions hawked only because they fit into their place of power? 5. They cherry pick, ok? Its like this with unions. Unionize all goverment workers. The (assumed) best labour in trades, and any labour that works on mega projects is unionized. You want to work on big inch pipe or mega dams, you have to be in a union. You want to work for goverment, same thing. If you want to be a teacher or a cop, you join a union. You don't have a choice.

And this is where, for some reason, you go off on a tangent with me. I don't mind this. If that choice is taken away so that there is a group that is paid by union dues to negotiate for fair settlements, that sits well with me, becuase someone has to. Labour does have to organize, its a no brainer. And large projects are one time and need labour above the grade, so why not raise the standards adn pay them well? A group has to exist to negotiate with governments, especially when voters are too programmed to vote for a government that cares about its voters and labour rights. I have no qualms with this.

But there are situations where unions try to break into labour that they don't control, because they want to either control the entire labour sector, or control labour that has the most power (which they've already done for the most part, its in that time capsule of mine). Look at every industy, bub, and you'll see it. Non union companies grow and as they grow, doesn't matter what it is, unions come knocking, specifically in manufacturing and construction. Oh, but they didn't knock these doors as startups. This always comes after the fact.

Do you seriously think that unions care about the average joe earning minimums at fast foods or convienience stores? They once did. Its in my time capsule. Course, in the beginning they were too busy organizing labour that gave them a bigger power base, you know, looking after the interests of government workers and trades and such. Did labour benefit? Of course!
:-) But whats next now?

These days, "it is percieved" that they care about where the money and power is, like any other competitive entity cause in case you haven't noticed with the look at history, its precisely what they've done. Compete. Unions are all about power, for cryin out loud. Did it begin this way? I have a memory like everyone else. No. ;-) It began with organizing to protect and instill human rights. Labour rights. Power was the effect, not the cause. In the beginning there were no standards until there were unions.

Where are they now that its for the most part accomplished? Some say sustainablity of goals accomplished. Others say after power, that this is the unions new cause. What else? Some would argue that money and power was what unions were after all along.

If you don't like this perception of unions competing, going for power, I suggest you take a good long look at what you don't like, because its commonplace. Call it... media, or propaganda, if you like, but I call it like I see it. This is what I see. I don't have to read it, or its own potential propaganda. All I have to do is ask, "who benefits?" Labour? Corporations? Governments? Elected officials? The consumer or common Joe down the street? You ask that question from these angles and if anyone has intelligence, they'll see it, and they'll see why unions are needed in certain sectors, but not all of them, why their ideologies work for these sectors or parts of them but not all of them, and why unions aren't the one fall swoop answer to everything with regards to labour.

Everything flows down hill. What we want at the top is someone with a vision extending beyond the one provided by those wearing corporate blinkers forcing a focus on this year's bottom line.

You all know the drill by now...fer instance...create secondary industry...make it illegal (or really expensive) to strictly be a hewer of wood or drawer of water. Saves money in the LONG run.

Create community. Keep the kids active and out of trouble. Saves money in the LONG run.

People are kept in cells for extended periods and then released to the street with nothing but the NEED to reoffend. 'scuse me, but where are the trades and why are they not mandatory in jails?

And on and on and on.........

Give me someone with some common sense and a vision of what we can be. I don't care a whit for international credentials.

good comment BeagleBreath!
Brain:
You wonder why unions do not go after small time workplaces, do you not realize that many small firms are family operated, with only a few actual employees?
There simply have to be a certain size of operation before it warrants the effort!
The Starbucks and Wallmarts are places where it would make sense for unions to give people a bit of security.
It is not all about money, but about fair treatment, benefits and some guarantee you still have a job when you are past your prime!
It pains me when certain scribes seem to have to "educate" us poor folk.

, offers Brain.

And why not?

Don't you go for power when you are negotiating a deal, say buying a home or insisting on quality work if you contract for a trade or service?

Do you get up and screem ("I percieve too much power"), when a company like Walmart rolls into town and powers its way into the dominant retail force by crushing the local competitors?

And why would a union, ith hundreds of thousands of members not seek a power edge on issues?

Would you hire a lawyer if he or she begged for things rather than insisting on them?

Now, a few days ago you asserted the primary concern you hear from union members is their dues are too high.

I urged you to contact some of them to learn what unions are ripping them off so that I could then check (yes there is a process) to see what the dues rate is.

You haven't even responded on that one, which if these guys really are being ripped off you could prove your point immediately. Why?

Giving the name of their union won't identify them so why are you hesitant to make it simple and clear?

Also remember, the average union wage in Canda is over $22 an hour while the average non-union wage is about $18 an hour. Union benefits are also universally better than non-union if you manage to get any at all.

And you think workers would accept a $4-an-hour wage cut in order to save maybe 50 cents an hour on dues?

That sounds like Chicago School of Economics stuff to me.

Why is it you think unions must remain boxed into tidy little slots (that's a reoccurring theme with you, isn't it)?

Unions do move into untried territory some times and usually on the request of workers in that sector.

Are you suggesting a worker hasn't the right to decide what union will represent her and her colleaques, especially when the workers decide by a democratically sound secret ballot process?

Why do large construction projects often require workers be union members.?

Lots of reasons. One is because the workers who are already employed by the contractor are union and have every right to insist that other new hires also sign on.

Here's a little tip for you if that's all too much. Talk to all the new hires and maybe some of the older hires and convince them they should follow your lead and apply to have the union decertified.

It's actually very easy in BC because our Liberal government has amended the labour code to make it simple, simple, simple.

But then it's often easier to sit back, whine and come up with urban myths about just how terrible those big bad unions are.

Now some project people actually insist on union hire because then at least they are sure the workers are qualified.

Remember the leaky condos? It's but a drop in the bucket (no pun intended) to the stories of projects that have been disasters because people, who had accepted low-end wages simply weren't up to the jobs.

Quite often you have to hunt on a non-union work site for anyone who holds a real trades qualification. As often as not the workers got their start banging nails on some housing project in Calgary or helping dad fix the barn roof.

Real trades people have real trades qualifications.

Average Joes have been coming to unions for help for more than a century in this contry, including a growing number of burger flippers.

Unions, in fact, have done a lot of 'pro-bono' stuff to help them such as organizing McDonald's franchises. The unions go in knowing they won't recover their costs for decades, if ever.

Most unions don't even start collecting dues until a full collective agreement has been ratified by the employees by secret ballot. There is no such thing as retroactive dues either.

They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes more, in fighting legal battles keeping fulltime staff on site and a whole whack of others things I'm sure you'd find boring, but are still essentials.

Why ever would this international "gold-plated" woman consider leading the Liberal Party? While she admits to thriving on challenge and has a penchant for "moving-right-along", do you really think she'd look so far beneath her perch for the next interesting project to tackle? Who says she's a Liberal? She might be a Green or a Communist for all we know and she'd never reveal her biases as judges never reveal anything personal, nor should they. Mind you, I don't know where there's left to go after heading up Human Rights for the UN. Maybe a different portfolio in the same organization? For a real sense of Louise Arbour, get the tape of last week's CBC interview (with Kennedy, I think). Listen to her explain what drives her and I don't think you'll suggest she should head up the Libs. Good grief!

I am still amazed that many here consider Belinda Stronach to be a potential suitable leader for the Liberal party. This a person that has a hard to public speaking unless she is reading a speech written by high priced advisors. One only has to watch her respond to questions posed to her that requires a person to think quickly on their feet and still say the right thing. This is also a person that could not answer a simple question posed to her in French a few weeks ago.

What is most amazing to me is that all the years that the Liberals have been in power and engaged in a two person leadership battle, they have failed to groom a stable potential star candidates that are fresh and exciting.

Belinda has NO chance!

Allan: In future, when you quote, don't misquote me. Its the same thing as putting words in my mouth, or lying, for that matter. Man, its dismal. I expected better from you than this.

And you're all over the place. I pointed out the obviousness in labour standards needing to be more up to par with large projects did I not? In fact, most of your points on the last post are points I didn't even contest. Maybe you've had a long day.

aorangi:
The reason is for power and status, but many power. The most powerful person in this country for four years is a PM with a majority government. And your thoughts are noted. Her political affiliations are not known.

David Beers assumes a lot, but his whole idea of expanding our imaginations with individual Canadians who have not run for a seat in parliment, or is not well known even in the political area, is part of what we are missing.

It is through choice and varied selection that helps us to define what we think is the best choice. Some of us want a short list. Others like myself want a long one. I was never much on looking at a handful of individuals only, especially when the character traits to run this country make up "a long list".

Political Thoughts: While its true that Belinda is a terrible public speaker, she is an entirely different person when communicating with reporters. On this front, there are two Belinda's.

As well, its my opinion and only my opinion that the Lib team has more depth than you realize. All it takes is a simple comparison to the Conservatives to see my point, right or wrong. Did the Conservatives even get a minority elected in the last election? Its not how their voter base votes.

Maybe Canadians don't want minorities or people born outside of this country as potential PM's. Maybe Canadians don't want to vote for a woman to lead us in government. And maybe its exactly what we need. What do the Conservatives offer in these regards? Or the NDP for that matter with PM candidate potential. Compare, and the Libs might not be so short on the depth chart after all.

And off topic, but I voted Green in the last election. It might sound like I'm a liberal with posts to this piece, but if it was an article that was written about who was going to replace Harper, or Layton, I would approach these themes in the exact same way. And everyone would think I'm a Con or an NDP'er under the same circumstances.

Bottom line for me, is that stronger political parties, especially in the leadership role, mean a stronger Canada. Its a no brainer, and its unfortunate, I think, that voters consider themselves to be one dimensional or show one party interest when it comes to politics on a full time basis. Seeing it from all sides is how we see our own strengths and weaknesses within ourselves and the groups we support or oppose.

Brain, now you are avoiding the issue.

Answer my questiond because they are all based on statements you hve made to back up your anti-union opinions.

If I misquoted you show me where rather than simply accusing me of lying.

You are apparently now trying to weasel out of this debate over unions which you launched with your diatribes about unions, their power and their intentions.

Look, if you can't back up statements that put people or groups in a bad light then don't make them.

This seems to be a reoccurring situation with you and I might humbly suggest that rather than striving for quantity in words, which we all acknowledge here at Tyee you have won hands down, try to deliver a wee bit of quality in words at least once in a while.

Again, if I misquoted you tell me where, but also answer my questions because they are based on statements you made, but no seem reluctant to back up.

Frankly, I'm starting to think you don't want debate, you are interested only in seeing your words in print, regardless of how inaccurate or excessive they may be.

Gloomy: I realize it. And I also realize that there are large non union labour groups that are unrepresented, which is more what I was referring to, or more more specifically, unrepresented labour as a whole.

And, with starbucks and Walmart, it is about the money. Its always about the money. But from which view? Unions, Corporations, or both? I say its both. Walmart has pretty much told their employee's that they can kiss goodbye promotions or even the prospect of getting hired if they remotely consider unions. They've offered benefit packages of their own, but these packages pale in comparison to what Walmart can afford.

And what can Walmart afford? If they go union, ultimately the consumer suffers higher prices, or goes elsewhere, and that "elsewhere" option sits well with me. The U.S. is facing major trade imbalances with China and Walmart is responsible for a whopping 1/10th of it. Some of us might not care about the health of the U.S. economy, but I do. I care because 85% of our trade is North South and if they suffer, we suffer. And we are both about to suffer.

So Allan won't get any disagreement with me on Walmart, other than to say that if Walmart goes union, the U.S. economy is fragile enough at this point that even a simple shift such as this with Walmart bumping up prices to accomodate higher wages to maintain profit levels could "theoretically" and I must emphasize the word "theoretically" put retail sales percentages into a tailspin and kickstart the downturn sooner than expected. They're large. I'm willing to take that chance, but there are risks involved that have to be looked at with the timing of it.

Allan:
Perhaps I should have posted the post I never posted yesterday, because I've been far too wordy as it is. But I'll indulge you with a cut and paste of the heart of it from a day ago.

"Is non union labour properly represented? What happens if labour costs go through the roof in this country if all labour is represented? Can labour organize without union entities? Can business sustain it? Will unions be willing to drop wages in times of recessions when businesses and corps can't sustain higher costs? In a country that is crying for equality with everything from gender to regional pay disparencies from province to province, will we ever fully see it from unions, or will we see the same old "costs of living" factored in to the equation and this union takes care of its own, and that union does, and the other one looks after their own, and... will there ever be universal standards?

And what about certain questionable union ideologies to begin with. You know. "Labour first." Why should there be a first to begin with? As soon as there is a first, there is competition. dischord. Disharmony. It's a matter of fact. Stinks as bad as America first, or Corporate profits first, or company owners first, or tax payers first, or consumers first. Where is the equality? Where is the level playing field? Where's the harmony? Where's the peace? How can peace be achieved, without business, labour, consumers, goverments, environments, and anything else effected by our our choices, as being on a level playing field? Some unions don't have the "labour first" mentality. And some do.

At some point, Allan, competition is going to have to go to the wayside to see equality win the day. If equality doesn't exist, then by all means... COMPETE! ORGANIZE! ASSUME POWER! TAKE CONTROL! Sound familiar? But if the goal wasn't HARMONY! PEACE! SUSTAINABILITY! well, then... we'll never get it.

And we don't have equality now. And our ideology isn't quite ready for these last three in bold print either, if they ever were top priorities to begin with from any mentioned entities.

And some, yes some, would argue that unions have even created inequality, but I would just as quickly argue that it is big business and disfunctional ideologies that has done so. And, I would argue that potential realized or unrealized has a way finding its own measures of success and failure."

While unions definitely had their day when they were the only entity standing up for human and labour rights, new amendments to the constitution and government legistlation has been passed that is protecting human and labor rights more than ever before. Times are changing. This progress over long timelines could potentially reduce the need for unions altogether, but until that time fully comes, if ever, unions are needed. And one last thought, Allan. Learn to cut and paste so quotes remain accurate in the future. Its easier than typing mistakes, dude.

bRAIN
Let us all shed a tear for Wallmart and the US economy.

The capitalistic system is going belly up, do you not realize that?
It cannot be soon enough for many of us.
a revolution might just put things on a level playing field for a while at least!

Gloomy:
Yup! Key question is when or if we should wait for it. A good old fashioned revolt! Sounds good. Have any plans or should I brain storm a few ideas myself? And what methods do you prefer. Stop paying taxes... violence... laying down in front of traffic... general strikes... create religous cults (oops, we've got corporations and governments and any other group on the take for that one)... create a nasty virus (wups, we've got global warming for that one)... I know. Seek for and tell the truth once you know you've found it. (wups) :-)

This mantra is one of my favorites. "Be the child your Earth mother wanted you to be. Be the child your holy parents wanted you to become." The internal "revolution" sounds like a good enough place to start. Fast tracks "The first shall be last and the last shall serve the first" church stuff, and its darn site better than stuffing your pockets with fleeting power. :-)

The main problem (regardless of religious "blather" as some other than myself would call it) with ideologies of any entity, be it business, government, unions, labor, organizations religious or otherwise, or the individual, is that "service" sometimes just doesn't show up on the menu of choice. To serve... Regardless of what we believe or don't believe in in terms of higher powers... its those that don't serve the lesser powers, never mind the greater ones that fail and miss it, missing out on the best life has to offer, or what it truly takes to counter the worst of it. But then, we would have to serve life that isn't human to really see greater or lesser either way within certain realms, would we not?

And our next Lib leader, if he or she is any good, will have to address this too!

bRAIN: What exactly is it you are trying to say in as many words as possible?

Brain, you have once again shown you know absolutely about unions other than in some weird abstract way as a block to cheap and extremely flexible exploitation.

I cannot believe that someone in this day and age, who claims to be educated and who lives in Canada could write the drivel you put out above.

Yes there is a large unrepresented labour force out there.

Whoopdi friggin' do, and why do you think unions continue to organize, Brain?

Or are you saying they are unrepresented because labour unions won't represent them.

Aside the the legal hurdles of trying to represent someone you have no legal authority to speak on behalf of and the complete inabilitity to conduct strike votes, hold legal and binding meetings, oh the list is endless Brain.

Non-union workers are protected by the Employment Standards Act, not the Labour Code, but, they aren't really protected because there is virtually no protection in the ESA, but why am I having to explain life to someone who knows it all already?

Now, if you think it's unfair that non-union workers must suffer the fickle winds of economic bottom-ending, well then we agree.

But to say it's unfair, which I think I read between your lines, that union members have protection, better wages or benefits, well we're from different galaxies my good man.

Wake up guy. If you don't take out a membership in a country club, you better get someone to sign you in kif you want a round or two.

If you don't have life insurance, chances are your spouse and family will be on their own when you flit off to eternity.

If you don't join or organize a union, you are pretty much out there against the forces of profit.

Yes there are Employment Standards cops, I think they are still called Industrial Relations Officiers, but they are about as rare as hens' teeth.

Besides, they don't get involved until the poor non-union worker has launched a complaint on his own, confronted his boss (yes that's right)-tell the boss he's a jerk, but do it nicely), and then wait up to six months for a response.

If not received or what comes back is inadequate then you can contact an IRO who will investigate. . .when he gets time.

Belong to a union and pay your dues and you immediately have a union official insisting the employer follow the terms of the contract.

It's called the grievance process and an employer can not ignore or it and must participate.

So Brain, if you are truly feeling compasion for non-union workers and their plight, I would receommend you go and organize them into their own union. You could even call yourselves an association and pretend you aren't a union, if that makes you feel better.

Otherwise, I think your options might be to recommend another union to the workers or some other process you think might work,

But if you do nothing after telling everyone here at Tyee of your concern you are going to have to explain your in-action maybe.

Brain, that first sentence should have said 'absolutely nothing'.

allan

Gloomy:
Touche'. Less is more. Plankton, algae... itty bitty little things. Doesn't look like much, all by itself... and humanity probably wouldn't survive in the atmosphere left behind without an ocean full. When looking at it in terms of survival, or a further leap to what creationists would call "purpose" or what Darwinists call predator and prey food planning for survival, is to not acknowledge what is needed to survive.

To not honor this ideology, at least in principle, is to reverse importance. As for a fully capable human being that has had this explained to them and doesn't get it? What orders of life are greater than such a person? Oh, off the top of my head, in the context and realm of survival, try a blade of grass. At least its "served" its purpose.

"Take a breather and have a refreshment. Serve yourself when not serving others, and allow yourself to be served... and don't forget to buy a few rounds with tips along the way." Or something like that, to keep it short and sweet (as I can). Cheers, dude.

Everyone has the right to organize. Some don't do so. Some who try to organize, get threatened, or fired. Some companies hire folks to tell them how to shut down union organizing. Some simply don't bother and hope if they work really hard the employer will look after them. Some trusting folks who do their best to make sure their fellow workers don't organize, because they want to look good for the boss , end up getting shafted . and of course it just happens to be illegal to coheerse the workers attempting to sign a card.
Right wing governments do their best to make it difficult to organize. The minumum standards act was drasticallly changed by the present governemtn. Minimum hours of work perday, kids as youg as 12 and so on. The Labour code was slanted toward the employer around the same time. The idea seems to be. help your friends get cheaper labour.

Some folks don't seem to understand that, and we can see that right here on this page that started out talking about who the Liberals should get for a leader.

The rambling of one or two here makes it difficult for the rest to hang around and try to discuss the issues.

You don't surely think unions aren't there to suggest unions before the fact, do you? You know, a little "wink wink, nudge, nudge" years ahead of time, waiting for that phone call. With Alta pipelines that did any construction up to 14 inches, unions were there constantly reminding labour how much better it would be. And companies that had larger labour bases and stuck to small inch didn't hear a peep. And it wasn't the existing labour base that turned a couple. It was the union labor they hired that did it. Its cherry picking and I'm mentioning it out of principle.

And you don't surely think unions look to expand in places that are pro bono. If I thought like you once did, I'd cruise the markets, make the hit list of who's profitable or growing in Cap, who's non union and go for the gold. Like unions do. Take the cream and leave the skim. Again, give me one example of pro bono over the last 20 years. And I've asked you a couple times to explain why gender pay inequality still exists with government workers, specifically teachers with no answers back.

And is it about money and power? Of course! CEO's hate unions with a passion if they don't have them, because it'll cost them money. Ask Walmart. And unions don't favor CEO's that don't accomodate, because its missed opportunity for more power. Same old same O. Money and Power.

And what about that union takeover attempt in silviculture a few years back. Perhaps you can explain to me why it failed, and why unions tried workers that didn't know diddly about silviculture to begin with. Yah, they sure were representing labors interests on that one, here in BC. Their's that is.

This entire discussion came about Allan, because of a major disagreement. We can have battles here and there and you'll win a few and I'll win a few and we'll both learn from these views, at least in how to properly contest them, but what started it was union "conflicts of interest" in financially supporting political parties to further their agenda. And while you might justify it or claim it as ethical, I don't. Nor do I agree with how the NDP ran this province financially when they had power, because they ran up debt, pure and simple. Nice to have social programs and higher wages, but find a way to balance the books. Then NDP and Socreds just didn't do it. And no, I don't like that corporate lovin sellout Campbell social program slash and cutter to fill his rich buddies pockets either.

Allan, unions aren't perfect like any other human entity, they aren't answer to the universes equations, and I'm just a guy who's pointing it out. That's all. And is business perfect? Consumers? Voters? Governments? Individuals? Not in a heart beat and far from it, because they too, happen to be human, so while you defend the unions honor, and I lump 'em with all the rest, we can at least agree on one thing that its not a perfect world. So fair?

Anyways, its been educational, I'm not a knowitall, I have learned from you, but all you've done is add to the knowledge and views I already possess. My opinions haven't changed. And on that note, I'm sure yours haven't either, so until next time, I'm semi glad we've got this out of the way so we don't, the both of us, endlessly rant on about it, and focus our lives on other issues at hand. Like this six pack with four left. Cheers.

DPL: And who brought in better governmental labour standards and who's getting rid of them? Who's the most bought and paid for corporate sell out party of them all? The Libs (federally)? Uh, Uh. This discussion with unions didn't take place because of just little old me. It takes at least two. One or more are hardline NDPer's and pro union at that, out to bash anything that isn't, while I'm the guy that suggests they might have some conflicts of interest of their own to take care of before bashing the Libs incessantly.

And yes, everyone does have the right to organize. Last time I rang phones to farmers in Sask, I didn't recall charging them union dues in going about it, either. Unions aren't the only answer to the equation, dude.

Brain, you are so anti-union your rhetoric now has a post-intestinal odour to it.

You didn't ask me any questions about equality, you made a dumb statement, which anyone can see by going back into your overly voluminous blather, which I now see as aimed at exhausting anyone who challenges your ill-thought points.

I now find your retreat back to the
Liberal Party of Canada just what I expected of you.

Green, yes you might have a Green membership card, but you are so federal Liberal you sound like and ad man defending the slush fund.

Why don't you just admit you are a life-long Liberal?

I think it's because you are secretly as embarrased about that pork haven as the rest of us, so you dress yourself in different shades while still focussing almost exclusively on your beloved Liberals.

"You don't think unions aren't there to discuss union before the fact, you know a little nudge, nudge, wink wink, years before....", you ask.

Well if I belonged to a pipeline union, I'd sort of expect my union leadership to deal with such issues before the fact.

Even the Boy Scouts are smart enough to BE PREPARED, Brain.

Would it be better for the union to say nothing until all the job positions are filled and then turn to their members and say "sorry guy", but the bosses simply don't want you?

Grow up Brain or at least try to write something truthful or accurate once in a while, because the bs fools few of us.

Now, I am still waiting for an answer as to what unions are charging too much in dues. Quit playing cute here Brain and an
swer the question because it is based on allegations you tossed out, but have since run from.

I'm beginning to think you made those allegations up simply because you were spewing anti-union crap and were called on it and really had no defence other than to whip up a whopper.

You have less credibility each day you avoid, deny and ignore Brain.

Give us another 4,100 words without an accurate statement Brain. In fact, your daily output of blather has now reached encyclopedic levels on this topic and you have not proven one of the allegations you have tossed out.

Christ, even a sleezebag lawyer would choke trying to defend your imagination.

Frank, I've heard it from my own sister, a teacher. Is this close enough for you? I've called to ask her the numbers, she hasn't called be back, its been two days. Otherwise, there isn't that much else to say other than your entire posts are also slander and rhetoric. Thats all it is on your end. Its hypocritical. Offer me union rep salaries in comparison to the labor they represent, for, say, the teachers union and I'll listen.

Offer me, say, the union's take on the government workers of Canada, and their budget spending, and I'll listen. Offer me real numbers of your own on union dues in various sectors, give me web sites, links, and I'll look. Until then, you too are offering me nothing but rhetoric as well and I'm finding it somewhat hypocritical.

You justify unions giving money to political parties to get elected so that they get a better deal. You call this moral, or right as any other former or current union organizer would, I guess, but the rest of us just aren't that stupid. You downplay 11% provincial contributions, but don't offer previous numbers because history isn't flattering... You justify it with corporations contributing to political parties, but this isn't right either. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't need a lawyer to spell out "conflict of interest", here. Anyone who knows the difference between right and wrong can see it.

this whole discussion has arised, because you not only see any other party than the NDP as bad, anywhere in this country, you see the union as the best thing since sliced bread AND the radial tire.

And I see unions as just another corporation. Its not what they used to be, but its what they are now. They buy and sell labor. Are unions necessary? Are corporations necessary? Are organizations necessary? Yes! And I guess for this, because I don't agree with you with your holy saint version of unions, I get the Ron Irwin comparison. I don't know what to say, man. I have yet to debate with anyone besides Ron who saw things so one sided as you. Union only. NDP only. For many life times, well, at least your great great great grandchildrens lifetimes. You're extreme, man, thats all I have to say and this discussion is going know where. You won't change my mind on anything, other than broaden it with internal union workings that I can find out on my own if i looked. Otherwise, if you aren't willing to offer me facts of your own, its all rhetoric on your own side, going nowhere.

One last thing, to repeat myself. I've never voted Liberal in my life. But I must confess, you remind me of this preacher I heard once tell his congregation that Chretien was evil and the Liberals were his demons, telling everyone not to vote for them. You remind me of that nut.

The brain (dead one)

Forget the Fraser Institute. You sound like a front man for the National Citizens' Coalition.

Please elaborate because as tommymoore implies you sound like a recent turnip truck passenger with that line.

The Brain [dead] writes:

And braindead also writes:

When I encounter your rambling and lengthy examples of syntactically and grammatically challenged maunderings I find it to be like wading through mud. It infuriates me that you use the handle "the brain" when it has become more and more obvious to all here that "lame brain" would be more apt.

It truly is unfortunate that you are about the only person who hasn't clued into the fact that you speak out of a tightly confined little box, where everything must be neat, tidy and follow a course of action that is predetermined according to your view of the world.

You have shown more ignorance in this past post than anyone since

You spew misinformation with reckless disregard.

the more you type the more apparent your ignorance becomes. While some on this site posting comments strive to put forward valid points, you seem to cram your own foot further and further into your mouth

Your never-ending diatribes are fraught with meandering illogic and irrational irrelevancies.

Go back to school You obviously were a truent( at least in mind), if you missed such basics

Again, you spew out your ignorance without an iota of reason, just simple Vancouver Board of Trade rhetoric.

you are interested only in seeing your words in print, regardless of how inaccurate or excessive they may be.

I cannot believe that someone in this day and age, who claims to be educated and who lives in Canada could write the drivel you put out above.

your rhetoric now has a post-intestinal odour to it.

you made a dumb statement, which anyone can see by going back into your overly voluminous blather, which I now see as aimed at exhausting anyone who challenges your ill-thought points.

you sound like and ad man defending the slush fund.

Why don't you just admit you are a life-long ***?

Even the Boy Scouts are smart enough to BE PREPARED.

Grow up or at least try to write something truthful or accurate once in a while, because the bs fools few of us.

You have less credibility each day you avoid, deny and ignore

Give us another 4,100 words without an accurate statement. In fact, your daily output of blather has now reached encyclopedic levels on this topic and you have not proven one of the allegations you have tossed out.

Christ, even a sleezebag lawyer would choke trying to defend your imagination.

Talk about ad hominem.

Need a First Nations Person as leader of Liberal Party of Canada. The position is (let's face it) symbolic (as though Paul Martin actually DID anything as leader). But it's time Canada's REAL founding race was represented in the society we insist on foisting upon them..........

Janet666, sorry, but I had missed your last post here until now.

I see you partially quoted me in several of those comments above, but please, if you do this again, try to retype with a bit more accuracy.

Oh, and by the way, some of those comments, quotes etc., were by other people. That's right, not by me.

You were probably just so angry you didn't even stop and think, weren't you?

Again, please try to be a bit clearer next time you make up these lists of words or statements.

Last time you did that you were seen as a bit of a loose canon with damp powder. This time, it suggests that you have trouble even rewriting others' words without losing focus.

Pretty soon we'll all be mistaking you for another quick draw who doesn't let anything like common sense cloud his ignorance.