Good thing i saved my last rant, lol. Coming soon. ;-)

Alas, morally wrong but legally not. The constitution shells out only equal right to representation, but defines that not. We can argue all day and night about plurality system defrauding minorities, and quotas in recent referendums being set to high, but alas, as long as Emerson is not violating any federal laws, this is not legally binding.

Nice attempt at a non-story anyways. I like how the article waits until nearly the bottom to point out that Peter ran for leadership of the BC NDP. Oh, and it also forgets to mention Peter's Site: bcpolitics.ca. I mean, nothing against Peter, as I like many of his ideas and he is a frequent posters. However, this seems more like a press release than anything representing journalism.

There have been a few stories that have been published on the Tyee lately that cite so and so, a "lawyer", as though being a lawyer all of a sudden creates a sense of authority. Well, authors, and potential authors. If you are going to write a story, try and at least do due diligence and find another lawyer, preferably not so partisan to either collaberate or refute the terms. I mean, don't try and disguise views as news. Even the msm at least will throw in a statement of dissent or divergence from the main point.

To all concerned:

Ah, legalists, voters and philosophers about to mix it up without truly acknowledging just how dirty Emerson really is…

Honorable David Emerson reminds me of university professors who get genius from the odd student only to take it to the markets to pad their wallets with untold millions. Its the same conflict of interest we allow even now in our institutions, unknowingly....

Emerson's "conflicts of interest" are a matter of history. Emerson worked as a researcher for the Economic Council of Canada in Ottawa in the 70's, as B.C.'s deputy minister of finance in 1984, and as president and CEO of the Western and Pacific Bank of Canada in Vancouver (now the Canadian Western Bank). In 1990 he returned to the B.C. civil service as deputy minister of finance, and was soon named deputy minister to the premier, and then president of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. In 1998, he was appointed president and CEO of Canfor Corporation, B.C.'s largest forestry company.

With edges honed from his years as a researcher with the Economic Council of Canada and Liberal ties, Emerson knew where and when to go in the 80's when Mulroney rose to power.

I personally knew a former Economic Council of Canada researcher who had worked with this council for years and knew Emerson. My friend described Emerson "as your typical self serving butt licker who brown nosed his way wherever he went” (are you kids listening to the pointers on how become corrupt like Emerson? Pay attention on how to be a good crook now, and you honest folk pay attention on how to stop them.)

With Emerson, his history speaks for itself. Emerson was our 1984 as deputy finance minister as people in this province might recall, and with this position, Honorable Emerson had provincial banking intelligence that he used to his advantage.

Pick up a phone and offer to help management in a weak private banking sector, and next thing you know, he's President and CEO takeover king of the Western and Pacific Bank of Canada in Vancouver now the Canadian Western Bank after he successfully merged his bank with another one.

What people don't know, is how he managed to get his hands on shares with both banks, (if that was even legal) and get a judge to put a court order against the numbers under certain merger conditions to cover his tracks in order to make himself a multi-millionaire back then through his cherry picking (but this could be interpreted as here say, as it can no longer be proven because of such court orders, and even I must confess, I’m going by memory here on this one with an old Globe and Mail story from years ago)... and we can call it ethical, if we believe its fine and dandy to exploit government intelligence for our own personal gain, but that’s not what voters knew when they elected him into office again... in the 1990's this time as he later became president of the provincial governments BC Trade development Corporation...

Cont. from previous post:
Emerson had intelligence on every natural resource either developed or non developed in this province. His appointment to Canfor was again, no mistake and Emerson made millions more, again, off of our tax paying dollars government reports or government intelligence.

Honorable Emerson's directorships included : Teresen Inc, Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada; Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; Chair, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.; and Chairman and Director of Genus Resource Management Technologies Inc.

Some could argue that "hey, the guy is smart, gifted, he's making a few bucks off of being at the right place at the right time, he's paying his taxes, its all Canadian corporations, whats the beef?" If you can argue this is ethical...

I can argue definitively that it isn't, where he is definitely un-Canadian, especially with the intelligence Emerson gave Teresen. We all know where Teresen pays their taxes (in the U.S.), we all know (now) that Emerson was paid through shares for his role as a director for Teresen, and we all know that not only did Emerson know extensively what BC had with the natural gas sector, Emerson secured the takeover and sales of natural gas companies to Teresen by betraying confidentiality and public service trust of tax payers paid for intelligence, and, as a result, U.S. owned Teresen has a huge chunk of our natural gas service sector at our expense. Emerson made killings... at our expense.

If anyone calls this "ethical", their on the pipe. They don't know what the difference is between right and wrong, cause we can argue a "competitive angle with Emerson paying taxes on his millions made from Canadian corps... we can if some of us hold our noses, but there isn't one Canadian standing that can argue its ethical to sell out to the states. I don't care who they are, public servants don't sell out Canadian intelligence to the states! Especially for money!!!

Emerson was dirty as a Liberal MLA, never mind an MP and people voted for him without knowing the facts, and I can tell you emphatically, that he isn't any cleaner as a Conservative.

But hey, if someone wants to deny that Harper praised Emerson's character as his kind of people... maybe tomorrow Harper will you know, change his mind. He's a bit... flippant these days. You know... when it suits him... at everyone else’s expense.

As some will recall, the BC Trade development Corporation was a big part of the Federal Liberal trade missions back in the 90's. Remember those? There were all kinds of reports done on our resources here and what we had to offer. Honorable Emerson sat on information few had anywhere in the world with this region.

His involvement with banks and Canfor, and the Vancouver airport were all about money.

Cont.
You all want to know how we spend our tax dollars? Take a peak at this report on timber resources across the entire province of B.C. et. el, wood volumes, who's corporately hot, who's not, mill numbers, whats left to cut, everything is in this report. It was done for the BC Trade development Corporation of which he was then president in 1991, 1992. And, it was way ahead of its time.

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/D...021/RC021_3.pdf

This website contains information on forest industry prepared for our "honorable" David Emerson and explaining how and why our "honorable" David Emerson got so rich as a CEO dolling out shares to himself with Canfor. Emerson had intel no one else had.

And did he and his directors under Canfor dole out shares to themselves? Enough to rival Enron. While Emerson was CEO from 1999 to 2001, Emerson again used our tax dollar funded government intel to merge Canfor with Northwood, not by accident. Under Emerson’s guidance, 5,300,000 million shares were issued to senior managers (CEO and directors) with restrictions for sale 3 to 4 years such shares were appointed, diluting total issues at much higher values when these shares were finally excercised. He made his entire board of directors millionaires. Canfor has traded from 8 to 18 dollars a share with an 11 dollar a share average. Its not hard to do the math, especially knowing the CEO gets the most issued. Honorable Emerson made millions... at our expense. Three times now.

Again, Honorable Emerson's directorships included : Teresen Inc, Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada; Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; Chair, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.; and Chairman and Director of Genus Resource Management Technologies Inc.

Each directorship relates to what he knew from government intel, and reflects where these same corporations headed. Teresen did extremely well under his director advice. And, they issued the according amount of shares for provincial oil and gas resource intel from Honorable Emerson. At our expense.

He was right on top of coordinated market research and drafted major reports on the food industry in China, drafted energy sector briefing notes used by Premier Harcourt during Team Canada’s 1995 trade mission to China, with follow up to identify energy projects suitable for pursuit by BC companies.

Why did he have a chinese vote? (40% of his riding is Chinese) Ever heard the slogan "vote for the Republicans, their good for business." Honorable David Emerson was synomymous with this term in Chinese, only it was "vote for the Liberal, good for Business".

Honorable David Emerson has enough intel on RAV, Gateway and Whistler to make millions more. It should be no secret as to how many conflicts of interest he really has and I hope Peter Dimitrov cares to find out and act appropriately.

Cont. from previous post:
The conclusion is, he's dirty. Its one thing to get into politics to serve the public trust, to be a public servant. Its quite another to serve yourself. His rise to riches has been entirely at our expense. We pay salaries to politicians to "prevent" precisely this kind of thing from happening. He's dirty, and he's got to go. Emerson is not fit for any government, and his "recruitment" by Harper should suggest just how fit Harper is to govern. My take on it with Honorable David Emerson? Martin was desperate to keep him. Harper, well, Harper is just plain stupid or extremely corrupt himself to have him. I think its both.

And for the Legalists out there, I know where you are coming from (although I completely disagree with those of you on court challenges being a waste of time, especially in relation to possible future consequences of not doing anything at all) To give it further color, cited Section 8 of the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons reads:

"When performing parliamentary duties and functions, a member shall not act in any way to further his or her private interests or those of a member of the member's family, or to improperly further another person's private interests."

A strong argument can be made that Emerson not only furthered his own private interests as an MLA in BC by exploiting government intelligence to privately profit, and finance his becoming re-elected over and over, an argument can be made that he is doing it to become an MP and cabinet minister to repeat his past history of exploiting government intelligence in the private sector. This could have legal precedence through various judge court interpretations of current laws. It could even lead to new laws being written in future parliaments if pursued.

Emerson's defection can also be proved as leaving opposition MP to cabinet for its private perks and salaries, never mind ramming through federal provincial agreements with RAV and Gateway developments that Emerson “may” have a personal stake in, as well as violating conflicts of interest, especially in relation to what Emerson has done with government information as a past MLA in BC.

Fact is, Emerson broke conflict of interest codes at least within the minds of educated and informed voters in this province several times if not outright legally, but he wasn't called on it. There is potential for this to still happen.

Emerson wasn't morally fit to be an MP as a Liberal, never mind a Conservative. His millions made in private life with government intelligence speaks for itself, with possible litigations against Emerson if anyone cares to dig, and anyone who wishes to argue that Emerson was justified or innocent, or serving the public in any way after reading this post has to have certifiable rocks in their heads. Bottom line is "Honorable" Emerson is dirty in breaking the public trust several times now and has got to go.

Let's not get into a lengthy discussion about how bad this bastard is, let's get into a discussion about how we can undo the the damage to democracy and our civil rights this issue causes. Complaints to Elections Canada, might be a good place to start, with a Supreme Court challange as an objective, when the they-won't-listen condition, sets in. Peter I,m with you!

LEts not get into a lenghly discussion about that which we really have no recourse to do. Lets change our electoral system so we can vote for the people rather than the party. Starting with regional proportional voting districts so that the 20% of people in Van who voted conservative can get a rep, without having disenfranchise those whose only representation is a plurality. As well as introduce a ranked ballot so we can truly tell the intention of the voters. Who voted for the person, and who voted for the party.

Brain: you've added a ton of information (not readily obtainable) to our understanding of David Emerson, M.P., and I appreciate that very much.

Blehhh.

These people checked a box on their ballot that said, in large letters, Emerson, David.

They got Emerson, David.

So be it.

Brain, give us a break. You have set a new low here with your ever-tapping fingers, but you haven't given even one reason why people ought to take David Emerson to court.

Again you miss the mark. Emerson may well be the greatest sleezeball bar none in Canadian politics. I woundn't ever argue against that assessment, but the difference between sleeze and wrong=doing is a bit more than your personal loathing for a man who crapped on your Liberal friends.

No, this man sold out his constituents while many of them were still celebrating their hard work at getting him elected to represent them.

He screwed the people and that's the real crime.

Once again the correct legal position is brought to the fore, good on you Tyee and others who held some hot pokers to the fire and spiked the correct persons in the rear with them.

My prediction, there will be no lawsuit, nor will the efforts taken in this direction be of any long-term value.

dangrice.com intones:

Who voted for the person, and who voted for the party.

Guess what?

In our system, today, now, here in CANADA (not to be confused with GB as G West has done to me) we already, legally, VOTE FOR A PERSON.

The party (afiliation) is on the ballot (in brackets), but carries no legal weight (because it is in brackets).

Your other 'changes' would be interesting, but learn more about what system is in force now before going on about 'change'.

Finally! Brain- Exactly how these guys work- and the media spin is what wonderful citizens they are. Think back to Pattison and Expo- "he did all of this for a buck." Spare me- he did it because his position would give him access to heads of state and their underlings. Think a few business cards weren't exchanged along with let's do the taxpayer er lunch. No problem with the exchange but please don't try and sell us this line of BS that they do it out of civic duty.

I agree with the posters here that say there is no legal leg to stand on to sue him. However in the future perhaps a party headquarters can create a contractual agreement that would require the candidate to remain in the party after winning the seat or be required to pay back all expenses to get them elected. Any thoughts on this approach?

for Colin,

Dump the party political machines.

Hard to do I know, but your methodology would put more power over the candidate in the hands of party machines.

No way would I ever support such a plan, bad enough we pay tax money to these vultures.

Brain's piece above (in many parts) states the reasons for business insiders wanting to be art of the governance establishment, and why they have no desire to be part of opposition.

The material, while interesting, is too little too late.

This sort of dirt is needed to be put before the electorate BEFORE the ballot is cast.

A reminder to all to really, really research and understand the candidate BEFORE you cast your ballot, and to IGNORE the PARTY (affiliations).

Oh yeah? and we will wind up with at least 300 different perspectives on everything in parliament!
There is a reason why parties were formed; while not perfect it at least allows the machinery to work.
A bunch of windbags like Emerson would only waste everybody's time.
People have other things to do beside investigating up to 7 different candidates in a riding!
A party affiliation used to indicate the persons general platform.
It is hard enough to get people to vote, much less to likely they will invest time as you suggest

Interesting, disturbing, anger-invoking but not suprising.
Thanks Brain.

Murdock
This business about party names and affiliations being somehow nothing more than irrelevant and meaningless information on the ballot is a lot of horse feathers in my opinion.

Candidates run their campaigns and pay for them with funds raised through their 'official' party affiliations. To pretend that party connections are somehow merely meaningless labels is nonsense - especially when considered in light of the election financing legislation passed by the Chretien government that, until it's changed, is the law in Canada.

Without David Emerson's membership in the Liberal party and its endorsement of him as a Liberal candidate he would have had to run as an independent - to pretend anything else is sophistry. Had he done anything during the campaign to offend his leader (such as saying there is no difference between conservatives and liberals or that, if elected he was planning to switch to whichever party won the election if the Liberals didn't prevail) he would have lost that party affiliation and, were he elected, he would have sat as an independent. He didn't do that and that's the problem for those who are upset about what he did do. Of course he was a Liberal when he ran and of course his pretending that fact doesn't mean anything once he's decided to accept Stephen Harper's offer (whatever that offer was) is disingenuous. Whether it's legally actionable is quite another, very interesting, question! On that point I don't disagree with you, as I posted yesterday before all comments were unceremoniously withdrawn.

Mr Murdoch appears to be more interested in expressing his opinions about another matter, (which is his right), that has very little relevance to the current subject, all in my opinion.

While speaking to Don Bell, my Liberal Candidate (now my MP) he indicated that he had been approached by both parties to run for them, so it is not uncommon for certain candidates to be wooed by different sides and if the conditions to their agreement fail to materialize, then they might think about jumping from a ship they have little loyalty for.

While I am not in favour of what he did, I don’t remember the Liberals wanting to “sue” Belinda for doing the same thing or offering to return the money to the Conservatives.

Frankly I am astonished that she got back in, although I don’t know how much she is going to enjoy being the underdog.

I also think that this type of floor crossing is more of the norm in minority governments, when I read about minority governments around the world, keeping the coalition together becomes almost a daily task, just look at the Israeli political scene, I am sure they must use Velcro on the nameplates as they change so much.

Dangrice:
The problem with doing away with parties is that parties have the human and monetary resources to contribute collectively towards a common platform, while individual MP's do not. Most of us are suckered into thinking that we can't find out enough about our candidates before the day of the polls. This used to be the case, until the internet came along. So things are changing. We can find out about individuals running for office more than ever before, and not just with their own song and dance. We can dig. But some things don't change. Leaders still stray from their party platforms. That still happens. So individuals count! They have to keep their promises and their word. With this, Emerson failed us. Many times. Its just that this last time, he made it extremely obvious.

I guess the biggest problem for voters and parties for that matter, is that there does have to be some kind of uniformity with ideologies. Some of them are very cut and dried. We either want foreign investment or we don't. We want the right to abort or have gay marriages or we do not. But see, last example is a clear demonstration of lumping ideologies together and this is the problem wiht parties and their platforms!

Some of us are for gay marrage for example, but against protectionism, some are vice versa. This is where our parties fail us. Too many ideologies lumped together for anyone's true liking. And yet, it is likely that the majority of voters don't want things to be that complicated. They don't want 308 choices. They want a handful. Unfortunately, as I've said, we get ideologies lumped together and this, in truth, is why extremists like Allan will see me as Liberal when I've never voted for them in my life.

And some of us talk to little to late when it comes to digging up dirt with guys like Emerson. Someone tells the story spelling out where we went wrong, and commentators post comments about how its a wasted exercise and waste of time? How do you spell "prevention"!

What, we think guys like Emerson won't come in the future? I gave you all a text book treatise historical look on what kind of man with previous historical action would jump ship less than two weeks after an election and "how to see it coming" from individuals in the future so that we will be smart enough to see "conflicts of interest" when they arise in the future and not vote for them next time and this is the response?

Its too late? In some ways. And in some ways, its just in time. We have more elections coming.

Certain people who read my post with a mindless hate on because it happened to come from "the brain", heck, if it came from "no name", a name no one has had the opportunity to bash, the opposite would have come from some of you. A certain percentage of you should give your heads a true shake.

BC Mary: ;-)

In the long run, despite tradition in terms of floor crossing, the Harper/Emerson situation is anomalous for one predominant reason. Whether or not the ethics commissioner will decide the behavior violated the guidelines of the house is another matter and whether or not some hypothetical legal action might materialize in the next few weeks is still another.

What voters, whether they are conservative, liberal or nonconformist of one stripe or another ought to be considering is the ethical divide between what Stephen Harper said he believed in (in terms of openness, transparency and a commitment to establishing workable and efficient connections between voters' wishes and the way MPs reflect those wishes) and what he is now practicing.

This is a man who promised to do politics differently from what he said, and others believed, was the sleazy tradition of the Liberals. Why there has been no more critical analysis of this slip between mouth and lip when he finally achieved the power he coveted acidulously for so many years is an indictment of the media in this country. Unless some members of the chattering class begin to recognize that there is some obligation on their part to pursue Mr. Harper for answers to these important and difficult questions we are likely to see this kind of ethically challenged and irresponsible behavior as regularly under the Harper government as we ever did under Mr. Martin.

Proposition 1:
Responsibility should be placed where it belongs and in the end the verdict will be delivered at the ballot box. In order to evaluate the Prime Minister's behavior it is contingent upon the media to make the connections between what Mr. Harper said he believed in and the way he is behaving. The fact that several thousand voters in Vancouver are upset about the way their role in the democratic process was subverted is the vehicle that illustrates Mr. Harper's betrayal of all voters. Under appropriate scrutiny, this issue is potentially as critical for the future of this government and this Prime Minister's reputation as anything that happened to Paul Martin and the Liberals in Adscam. I don't think, however, in the absence of that kind of media coverage the effects will be as significant - sadly.

Proposition 2:
The other issue is, simply: If Emerson resigns because he and or the prime minister have violated the house ethics guidelines (or because he has a sudden attack of conscience) then so be it. That result would not be, in my opinion, very different from the outcome of the Sheila Copps / GST resignation promise and Mr. Emerson, were he forced to resign, would be free to run again as Ms Copps did.

Ironically, the final outcome in terms of proposition 1 may well turn out to be a function of whether or not proposition 2 has any staying power, in my opinion.

And, despite how much I disagree with what Harper and Emerson have done, dealing with this shouldn't be left to a ginger group or you end up with things like this situation from England (which is not to say, I hasten to add, that I agree with Ken Livingston's actual remarks):
http://nytimes.com/2006/02/24/international/europe/24cnd-london.html?hp&ex=1140843600&en=bc8b45e82747812b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

G West posts:

your opinion is actually quite correct, the (party affiliation) is totally meaningless.

this is why you - the voter - are responsible to make your vote wisely. with understaning that you are not voting for a party (despite what the party people shout at you all the time!), but for a person.

My commentaries about this subject, Emerson et al, have been always directed at the fault of the voter in misunderstanding our system.

I have not strayed from that point at all, so trying to minimize what I have to say G West is out of line.

Baloney, you're whole point is to subvert the system, not change it for the better!

should be 'your' sorry!
You don't even want a national government - you would prefer a republic of BC - I don't agree - how does that make me 'out of line'?

Uhm, so the story here is....a lawyer is looking for paying clients, and would be willing to make a completely new argument, for which there are no clear precedents, on their behalf. Maybe we can run some stories on other imaginary lawsuits, and solicit clients for them? Tyee, this is news???

I agree - the electoral system does not exist for the party system...it's the other way around. The party system is an unfortunate by-product of a system of representation that is ideally based on solely on individual citizens irrespective of political stripe, creed or ideology. It's citizenship that matters, not the party membership card. It bears repeating at a time like this (altho I feel compelled to repeat my verdict that this was an idiotic move, idiotically conceived & executed).

This is why I noted earlier that the loudest complainers in this fiasco are those who are somehow beholden to the party system. They're not "real people" in the sense of the disinterested exercise of participatory citizenship.

Murdock, dear soul: it's beyond annoying that you keep strumming that same tune: it's the voters' fault ... voters are wrong ... Emerson is above the law ... stop your protests! Stand down, everybody, there's nothing to be done about the Vancouver-Kingsway double-cross.

Forgive me for thinking you're campaigning for a general acceptance of what Stephen Harper has achieved in V-K not because it passes the sniff test but because it suits you.

In a weird way, I can understand that. But it would be nice if you understood that others (like me) view the Harper/Emerson caper as a brutal betrayal of the electoral process, it'd be awfully nice if you maintained a dignified silence after stating your case.

Murdock
Voters aren't at fault, in my opinion, it's the politicians who take advantage by making consistently technical arguments, which I would suggest you echo.

This point is one of principle and misrepresentation: Harper's conscious decision to abandon his own principles and represent what he's doing as something quite different.

One of my principles is that I don't rule other people's ideas, however consistent they are, or however much I disagree with them as 'out of line'.

In the end, as I've said before, I think it's possible to change the current system for the better and in the end, I'd rather have this imperfect system than the kind of anarchism I suggest your kinds of changes would attend.
Again, in my opinion.

nightbloom

Ideally, I don't have much problem with what you're saying. In the real world, not so much. Witness, for example the annual votes in Swiss cantons where the community foregathers to blackball the prospective citizens who, having lived and worked for years in Switzerland, cannot get a majority of the residents of said canton to accept that they should now have the 'honour' of receiving full Swiss citizenship.
Activism and community involvement can be a double-edged sword.

BC Mary opines:

Forgive me for thinking you're campaigning for a general acceptance of what Stephen Harper has achieved in V-K not because it passes the sniff test but because it suits you.

In a weird way, I can understand that. But it would be nice if you understood that others (like me) view the Harper/Emerson caper as a brutal betrayal of the electoral process, it'd be awfully nice if you maintained a dignified silence after stating your case.

At least you are seeing some reason, BC Mary, there is nothing to be done directly about the Emerson situation.

I forgive your thought that I am doing any campaigning at all for Harper and the CONformers. I am not, have not from the start and I voted for the Green candidate last time round for your information, mainly because he showed up at the four all-candidates meetings that I was aware of. In fact at one he was the only one present.

What I have been doing to trying inform and educate readers here that are busy setting their hair on fire and frothing at the mouth - totally misunderstanding the system of which they are a part. This 'de-elect' campaign is nothing more than a socialist love-in, while they can be fun, let's stop the nonsense.

More to the point, not of this column but in defence of my position, is that morally and ethically the Emerson move is wrong, but then one cannot legislate morals nor ethics. That takes integrity and good character, something that ALL of the self-selected politicians do not have.

Your, BC Mary's, anger and frustration with what you percieve as the democratic process comes from a total misunderstanding of the system. You may join the others in their ignorant protest, or you can take the time to fully understand what you do when you mark a ballot.

You may not like the way I state things here, that is permitted, demanding anyone's silence on any subject is worse that what has been going on in the monkey house called the Canadian House of Commons.

nightbloom, we agree. It is fortunate that there is a forum such as the Tyee where our thoughts can be freely shared.

cheers

murdock
With that, I do agree!

Murdock says "The party (afiliation) is on the ballot (in brackets), but carries no legal weight (because it is in brackets)."

I think it carries some legal weight. In 2003 the Elections Act was changed so that smaller party candidates could have their party affiliation on the ballots. The case was Figueroa v. Canada, below is a section of the finding.

Under the Canada Elections Act, a political party must nominate candidates in at least 50 electoral districts in order to obtain, and then to retain, registered party status. Registered parties qualify for several benefits including the right of candidates to issue tax receipts for donations made outside the election period, to transfer unspent election funds to the party and to list their party affiliation on the ballot papers. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the 50-candidate threshold. The trial judge held that the threshold was inconsistent with s. 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that this infringement could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal held that the 50-candidate threshold was not inconsistent with s. 3 of the Charter, except to the extent that it denied candidates of non-registered parties the right to identify their party affiliation on the election ballot.

People need to stop acting as though elections are a sporting event with teams (parties) fighting for the cup (forming government), players (candidates) switching teams and the electorate as mere spectators. Last time I checked we live in a participatory democracy!

As for lefties setting their hair on fire about Emmerson - when Stronach joined the Liberals the Tories fell all over themselves introducing motions to restrict party-switching, my MP was one of them. When asked if she would be bringing the motion back she said "That was last year."

I hope the citizens of Vancouver Kingsway keep up the fight.

dj2 - we (the constituents with the most celebrated liar in Harper's Harem) of V-K are certainly going to keep the fight up. It is irrelevant whether we voted for Emerson the Liberal - or Emerson the man who protrayed himself as having "Liberal sensibilities" who promised to be the "worst nightmare" of Harper's right-wing agenda. Either way, Emerson misrepresented himself - and he will have to come out of hiding one of these days and face the people of the riding who are all united by the only truth that exists when it comes to this man - no one voted for "Emerson - the Conservative Cabinet Minister" who has no values bearing any consistency other than self-gluttony.
Colin - there is a significant difference between Belinda who crossed a floor (that had time to actually be laid) after sitting close to a year with CRAP (and that is a long time to sit with such matter) before being unable to swallow their social policies. Thus, she didn't abandon them - but their policies abandoned her. Furthermore, her riding was virtually split in their political stripe between Liberal and Conservative. Our riding of Vancouver-Kingsway is definitely left-of-centre and we haven't elected a Conservative MP for over half century - so this is viewed by all as a definite abberation of our democratic voice - and it has even raised the ire of the sensible Conservative-leaning voters in our riding. Kim Campbell calling in giving her approval for Emerson was found to be laughably audacious by many of us - if she likes him so much, she can have him. Talk about an aura of enlightenment - obviously the Liberals just don't come close to the delusions of grandeur held within the Conservative crowd.
The power should not be held by either the Pary or Candidate - it should be the people if it is a democracy. As such, I recommend there be an ombudsman to handle disputes on behalf of the people to ensure that the Candidate is doing his job as representing the constituents of his riding.

This post has been removed because it contained derogatory language.

Tyee Site Manager

Understandme: (-:
Percy: I would normally have thought the same as you in that this is a non story, but Peter is no ordinary lawyer, and as such, it deserves attention.

Murdock:
I agree with you that the majority of the responsibility belongs to the voters in who they elect. However... if voters have not been given the facts of who it is that they are really voting for, then the fault lies with the media and the individuals who did not make it clear enough as to who their opponents truly were, or are. As such, it isn't the fault of the voters in kingsway to have voted for a liberal. It is the fault of the voters of kingsway to have unknowing voted for a "dirty liberal", shared by the incompetence of failed opposition campaigns and a completely biased and bought media such as Can West. When the system breaks down, its never really just one thing.

G West: Your assertion with Harper being ultimately to blame is correct. He not only put his arm around this "dirty liberals defection", he showed a complete disregard for any promises he once made in relation to ethics, accountability and principle as a whole. Its Lyn' Brian all over again. You are dead on with pinning the blame at the top where it belongs.

Off topic, but our military forces are going to be increased by 33,000 soldiers. It won't come cheap and it means that we will be sending our sons and daughters to fight Bush's wars. It is one crime after another in parliment these days, and this is the number one issue at present. Why are we going to spend 10's of billions of dollars on a U.S. war over resources for U.S. corporations when we need this money here at home?

Harper is shaping up to be the worst leader this country has ever had. And the media once again, is giving us all a snow job. Just like it was under Mulroney.

Murdock, don't be silly. I am neither angry nor frustrated. But it does get tiresome hearing you bleat the same denunciation over and over. And it doesn't help a damn bit, that you try to justify this as your noble attempt to "educate and inform" the poor illiterates on this web-site. You're brainwashing us? Hahahahaha. And you said you weren't a Neo-Con ... hahahahaaa.

Next thing I almost expect to hear you say that it's the voters' fault that Emerson turned out to be a Conservative, not the Liberal as advertised.

I honestly don't see how the voters could have anticipated that Emerson was a Conservative since (a) he had spoken so fiercely against them, and (b) there was already a Conservative candidate on the V-K ballot. Pretty mean of you, Murd.

for The Brain,

Yes the blame lies with those whom put their 'x' on the ballot, without taking the time to learn.

I cannot lay any of the same blame at the feet of the 'media'. For the 'media' only reports what it gets, with all the muckrakers out of the system, and far too much media 'concentration' I do not pay any attention to the 'media'.

This is where all-candidate meetings come in. Q&A opportunities must not be missed, the simple act of asking a question of the candidates directly, in-person will tell much more than any party platform, prepared document (like the propoganda fired at us on all sides by the parties), or prepped speech statement made by any of the candidates.

The fact that, in my riding, the CONformer was 'the invisible man' not seen at any of the all-candidate meetings and both the LIEberal and NDP'er decided to give a pass to a high-school Q&A session (early in the campaign during the 'phoney election') was very telling to me. The frankness of the Green Candidate, then the frightened look on the LIEberal one when taken to task by one questioner about the whole sponsorship mess pretty much sealed the deal for me.

Just because a 'majority' do not understand nor participate in our democracy does not give them the right to try and overthrow it by other means when they do not like some part of the outcome.

Emerson's crossing was not the first, nor will it be the last. The speed was unique, the response has been comic.

This lawsuit talk is even more comedic, Monty Python could not have written a better script.

HEY BRAIN !

your are right about HARPER sending our TROOPS into HARMS WAY !!!

as an ex canadian military engineer back in the sixties...it was PEACE KEEPING that we were proud of...

EVEN THOUGH I WENT LOOKING FOR ACTION...I REALLY MISS THOSE DAYS...AND THE GOOD PEOPLE THAT STOOD SIDE BY SIDE FOR THIS COUNTRY...

now we have a different MENTALITY...A DIFFERENT WORLD ALTOGETHER...

the major RELIGONS are in their respective corners...THE FIGHT IS ABOUT TO BEGIN !

JIHAD...HOLY WARS ! YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHIN YET !

and it's being fueld by BUSHITE'S like HARPER !

god help us all........

AND I AM NO NIHLIST...I AM READY TO LOCK AND LOAD !

BUT I ALSO REMEMBER POGO'S FAMOUS WORDS "I HAS SEEN THE ENEMY ! AND THE ENEMY IS US ".

then again...THAT WAS ANOTHER WORLD EMBROILED IN WAR AS WELL..............OUR WORLD...

i keep wondering if it's ever gonna change...

DAMN ...I'M GETTING MAUDLIN...I GOTTA GO WORK OUT !!!

CIAO

for BC Mary:

it was equally tiresome to continue to read the same denunciation of my truthful and accurate information.

the teacher simply repeats the lesson when it is not understood completely.

you keep asking for more explanations.

it is too bad that the Tyee article did not include a link to my second article on this matter - which goes into some detail about part of the legalistic arguments on the side of citizens versus the side of parliamentary privilege. That article is called "Is there a Case Against Emerson? - Part Two.

Here is the url:

http://www.bcpolitics.ca/left_emersontwo.htm

I am happy to see some one else made a reference to Figeuroa...which is a very significant SCC case discussing the meaning of "effective representation" , "right of citizens to play a meaningful role in elections", and "sovereignty rests in citizens...

someday, the Charter must be used to challenge ...unrestricted parliamentary privilege...it has never been done....so go to the url ..and check it out. As for Murdock...thanks for your arguments in favour of Mr.Emerson...it is always good to see and hear about the other side, --I would suggest to look at my viewpoint too.

(Murdock) Do the brackets make you irrelevant?

Frankly I do not recall brackets around the party affiliation on my ballet and believe me I looked for the party just to make sure I had a valid ballot. Elections Canada did however try their damnest to make the party name invisible for older eyes however.

Understand me: I hear you brudder. As IZ.
(-: I just realized earlier today as well, that 5.3 million shares are what was issued in 2000-2001. Emerson issued 3 million more to his directors and himself in 99'. Oh, the smell of it! (-;

Murdock:
You do realize of course that when you say the media has nothing to do with it, that Can West, for example, owner of various papers like the Vancouver Sun, the Calgary Herald, the Ottawa Citizen and the National post to name a few is owned and controlled by CEO Leonard Asper, an Israeli (no offense to Jews) who's family is falling over themselves to support the U.S. integration of Canada for the sake of U.S. support to their own homeland, and Canfor is likely (I say likely because I can all but prove it) funded and at the very least, ideologically supported by the National Citizens Coalition to do.

Now if you don't know this, and yet hold the average voter accountable for it, one might actually percieve this as being somewhat... hypocritical with your stance that its entirely the voters fault?

I don't care if you are an average laymen, a mystic, a phycic for real, God or otherwise. For the most part we know only what we are being told!

And, while this is no complete excuse to elect public servants who only serve themselves and let us down, as you have aptly mentioned, especially as it is the case with Honorable Emerson, it is nevertheless, a fact that some of us aren't ignorant, but fall in the category of naivety!

As such, the entire blame cannot lie with the voters and average person on the street, here. Not everyone has access to the internet or media that tells it straight, if at all. In other words, there is more to this system than the voter when it comes to getting accurate information out there. In other words, there are key factors that make a true democracy work within the voters decision making. It just isn't as cut and dried as "voter's are lazy or apathetic, here.

I think it was a murdoch who said we have the ability to vote for a rep and not a party. And yes he wasright, we do have the ability.

But what is right in theory is not right in practicality. We have no way of distinguishing who voted for Emerson because he a Liberal, who voted for him because at the time he was not a conservative, and who voted for him because of his qualifications. Had he run as a conservative in that riding he probably would not have been elected nor if he had run as an independent with exactly the same policies as the liberals.

But the other thing is, had he not switched parties, a majority of his constituents still would not have got the representation they asked for.

The reason we need multimember ridings is that the most variety of representation gets elected. Had there been a conservative in Vancouver, I doubt Harper would have chosen Emerson or even accpted his switch. The reason we need a ranked ballot is so that voters can vote for the person, and give a 2nd choice had their first choice not cokme in. Perhaps, Waddell would have got more votes had Emerson not been seen as a Tory stopping vote. Perhaps Emerson would have took all Kanman's votes and kept the more right of center voters who voted Liberal to keep the NDP out.

Peter, its too bad the Tyee didn't just ask you to write an opinion piece rather than try to publish a third person account of one.

Alas, can non-legislation be challenged under the charter? Figueroa was only able to proceed because new legislation was enacted that would have changed the other CP's status.

I'm not sure (I may be wrong) that the Charter has ever been used to challenge a lack of legislation.

Just back here for a minute and was interested to read Peter Dimitrov's post as well as his Emerson part II. And, murdock, I hate to say I told you so, but, I told you so. These are valid legal questions and one can't just assume that British precedent holds with respect to the Canadian constitution and the Charter and evolving constitutional law.

Ah, the legalists and philosophers battling it out in the lowest courts.

Murdock: You have a legal point... but the philosophical one in the question of Emersons "ethics" is weak in the practical application (in my opinion) lol. Man, I'd like to see this one challenged. (always did like those courtroom drama's)

I See They Deleted My Post For ...derogatory Language...

The Only Problem Is...they Cannot Explain The Matter !!!

Derogatory To Whom ???

There Were Words That Offended...but Were Not Legally Libelous Or Profane !!!

Shows How Gutless The Tyee Really Is !

Pandering To Whiners..................

Religious...biblethumpers ! And Gutless Whoremongers ! Biblebelt Kiddee Diddlers...
The Vacuous Right Wing Whackos !!!

Now Show Me..............who I Have Named ? Any Names ??? Show Me Libel ??? Any Libel ???

Anyone That Complains About This Prose...stands And Defines Themself...

We Got A Charter Complaint,tyee ???

Or Ya Just Gonna Delete Again And Hope I Will Go Away ?????????????????????????????????

Ya Wanna See Cojohnes ??????????? I'll Show Ya Mine !

Vancouver Kingsway: Emerson versus Waddell: Thank your lucky stars: You won big!!!

Hi Dangrice, ...you ask whether the Charter has ever been - or can be used to challenge a lack of legislation. Answer is Yes - the Charter can be used to challenge legislation and other law, including in my view the common-law of Parliamentary Privilege, entitlements, etc.

Section 32 of the Charter speaks of its applicability ..and of course case law handed down elaborates on that.

As for your remark that you wish the Tyee had just published an opinion piece by me...and not post this article, well I did send to the Editor on February 20,2006 the entire copy of "Is There a Case Against Emerson?: Part Two"...but I guess the Editor decided not to go with it...which is certainly his perogative.

Information on Charter applicability follows:

The word "government" is used in s.32 in the sense of the executive government of Canada and the Provinces, not the whole of the governmental apparatus of the State. The Charter will apply to the legislative, executive and administrative branches of government whether or not their action is invoked in public or private litigation. It would seem that legislation is the only way in which a legislature may infringe a guaranteed right or freedom. Action by the executive or administrative branches of government will generally depend upon legislation, i.e. statutory authority. Such action may also depend, however, on the common law, as in the case of the prerogative. To the extent that it relies on statutory authority which constitutes or results in an infringement of a right or freedom, the Charter will apply and it will be unconstitutional. The action will also be unconstitutional to the extent that it relies for authority or justification on a rule of the common law which constitutes or creates an infringement of a right or freedom. In this way the Charter will apply to the common law, whether in public or private litigation. It will apply to the common law, however, only insofar as the common law is the basis of some governmental action which, it is alleged, infringes a guaranteed right or freedom: Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union et al. v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (S.C.C.), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; Tremblay v. Daigle, 1989 CanLII 33 (S.C.C.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; McKinney v. University of Guelph, 1990 CanLII 60 (S.C.C.), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (S.C.C.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130.

Decisions of the Federal Cabinet fall under s.32(1)(a) of the Charter and are therefore reviewable in the courts and subject to judicial scrutiny for compatibility with the Constitution. The executive branch is duty-bound to act in accordance with the dictates of the Charter: Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. The Queen et al., 1985 CanLII 74 (S.C.C.), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441.

for the Brain:

Yes I am well aware of media 'concentration' in the way that you post and others, which is why, AS I SAID BEFORE, I ignore it.

I pay attention to the direct words, actions and presentation FROM THE CANDIDATE. So those candidates that do not come out to be seen in person will never get my vote.

This is how the 'system' has a check on the big spenders and media moghuls. Meet your candidates! If you cannot ever see them, treat them as though they do not exist, for in reality they are working hard to vanish (referenced above in my 'invisible man' CONformer candidate).

4Cryinoutloud

try putting your signature (in brackets) on a cheque to your lawyer or accountant, find out how fast it comes back.

NAVAL LAW is still supreme in Canada and the (brackets) issue is part of NAVAL LAW.

Learn more about it, then argue.

Regarding the ballots, there was an earlier article on the Tyee, I cannot find it quickly here but I do recall it talking about the party names not even being on the ballot until the 1970's. Maybe other readers/commentators can recall the article.

In the end the vote is still for a PERSON and not a PARTY.

dangrice.com posts:

so rather than go down a road of greater complication, such as you suggest. Why not take a simpler action and REMOVE THE PARTY (AFILIATION) from the ballot?

for Peter Dimitrov,

Thank you for not ignoring the situation here and leaving some to think it merely an advertisment for your services.

I have reviewed your 'part 2' piece.

of note:

The legally accepted process that grants every citizen of this country the right to play a meaningful role in the selection of elected representative is a federal election. Such as the marathon xmas one we just survived.

If you agree that the election process was done correctly and that the ballots were valid - to date no one has challenged the ballots in Vancouver-Kingsway then you must also agree that the right to play a meaningful role has been served.

Therefore, the crossing-of-the-floor, which occurred AFTER the meaningful selection was completed has no influence or impact on your arguments.

If you do not think that the election serves to grant every citizen a meaningful role in the selection of elected representatives then I think you have a real mountain to climb as I am certain the the Supreme Court will squash your other arguments under the text known as the Elections Canada Act.

Again, I REPEAT, there is no basis in LAW to challenge a LEGALLY ELECTED MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT from taking whatever action(s) that they the LEGALLY ELECTED MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT want to take. Even if those actions are morally or ethically wrong, so long as they are not LEGALLY wrong nothing can be done LEGALLY.

Going after Emerson in this way, THE COURTS, is a waste, better is the trapping of him 'at home' currently and causing more federal bureaucrats to have to fly out to meet the hermit MP.

This is a character and moral issue, not at legal one.

murdock, as much as it pains me, you are right. It is a moral issue, one that is deep enough I'd be picketing out in front of my MP's office until he resigned.

No one needs a legal reason to remind this a**hole 365 days a year that he ripped the constituents off and that includes picketing at his home and private business offices, if he has any.

Forget the semi-threats that arise when you talk of picketing a politicians home. As long as you are peaceful you are entitled to picket his home.

He didn't ask voters if he could switch allegences, you needn't ask him if he minds having a standing picketline ensuring he doesn't forget.

He has coices, he has had choices. It is up to him to make good choices. If he finds the heat too much, well....he has choices.

For people like the mayor of Vancouver or the premier to claim Emerson will be so good for the city and province is like the cops telling you the guy who stole your new car will be car pooling.

Murdock
Again, respectfully, this is an open question. Until resolved in a court of law your contention - oft and excessively repeated - is just an opinion: An opinion to which you have no more right than any other person is. Your imperious tone approximates revelation and seems out of place. The British precedent might prevail; it might not; that is a question for the courts to decide - not a bunch of amateurs posting to a discussion board.

The Emerson debacle is also, less controversially, a moral and an ethical issue. In any case, opposing it is a worthwhile exercise.

Unless you are willing to unveil your curriculum vitae as a recognized expert in constitutional law your pronouncements from on high are hollow and not a little repetitive.

Allan
There is a problem, in my view, with discussions and debates like this: they never really go anywhere.

If you look at the archives of posts on this subject on this site since, I guess it was February 6, the day of the cabinet announcements, you’ll find there is not much new being posted since that day. Some individuals lie down long-winded explanations of their views at every opportunity, the similarity between them suggests these are nothing but copy and paste jobs dropped like stones into the clear waters of each new thread. Others, though usually not at such great length, use the same argument ad nauseam to push a particular agenda, rising to the bait with great regularity. Still others prefer an indiscriminate approach and can be relied upon for nothing more than being unreliable in the heterodoxy of their maunderings. Occasionally someone of a different political frame of mind drops in for a mean-spirited rant.

I find myself doing the same thing, investing time in something that I increasingly doubt has any utility at all. Seeing the postings in this thread this morning, I am almost ready to think that the whole exercise has most of the usefulness of a discussion on sports talk radio.

What do you think?

While waiting to walk my son home from kindergarden Friday, I was approached by a man with a petiton to oust David Emmerson. Perplexed, I noted,

"This is not his riding."

His reply was,"But he did a dishonest thing."

I replied, "I agree, but are you doing this on your own inititative?"

Our petitioner replied, "No,I work for the NDP party."

Enough said. The pot calling the kettle black, me thinks.

G West: I see it as ideologies becoming more evolved and refined over time with anyone involved. Naturally, I've cut and pasted myself... to make a better arguement. Its why I did it. And, I'm not the only one who will make better arguments for or against... in time. And the fact that Emerson has failed us countless times, not just this year, is a point worth repeating, whether it be with endless details or a glib "he back stabbed us" shot.

Again, as for legal challenges and discussions being a waste of time, I'm sure Peter would be glad to debate us all on that one, as well as others such as myself, that it is not. Anything that makes voters more informed and better capable of making better choices on election day is not a waste of time, in my view.

Murdock:
While I appreciate your need and view to ignore propaganda, surely, you cannot ignore the fact that most of the rest of the public is not so informed as us concerning "biased" media, and a good chunk of the public doesn't have the luxuries we both have at our disposal. Not eveyone has the time or the means to become informed of the candidates they vote for. Can you at any time in your life think back to when you voted in an election and didn't do your homework thorougly yourself? There is such thing as evolution and experience to factor into the equation. The question concerning "potential" must be asked and adressed concerning "blame". Its just not that cut and dried.

For one, my riding had absolutely no town hall meetings on any issues, as it is with half the rural ridings in this province. Secondly, it doesn't matter what candidates say so much as what they do! There were unproven candidates for or against either way, or candidates that were encumbants from any parties in a good third of the ridings in this last election.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that your arguement that the voters are ultimately responsible for governmental mis-representaion is not entirely true. To put it all on the blame of voters as a blanket cure just doesn't wash for me for several reasons as stated, other than perhaps the strongest ones of all:

Not only did the majority of voters not vote for Emerson or the Libs, the largest responsiblity lies with the elected candidate. Failure initially begins not so much with the voters, but the candidates that are elected and while it is easy to philosophically argue otherwise as I would debate my own words here quite easily, the vaste majority of us didn't choose for Emerson to jump parties before there was a floor to cross, or as I have already thoroughly argued, choose to be "dirty".

Brain
Granted, but this still doesn't come to grips with my fundamental point; to wit, that after a few days on any particular subject the commentary gets pretty thin and repetitious. I've heard it said that others read the posts and therefore the dialogue has some extended value. I suppose that's possible, but difficult to evaluate. I think some of the stuff on labour issues is interesting on the other thread but I can't help but think most of the bang will be gone in another day.

Not saying forums like this aren't valuable, just not sure how valuable.

The brain muses:

first with G West:

However, unless the information about the candidate comes out in full public view BEFORE the ballots are cast, the information only becomes ironic.

then with myself:

Only once, and it was 'before' I could legally vote. During some cadet time I was rather clearly informed of the legal value of the ballot and the need for full participation. I guess I was lucky, as at the time I was taken to an all-candidates meeting for a provincial election in 1981. The officer who took 6 of us interested then went on to explain body language, regarding the confidence and truth-telling of each of the speakers, both those with questions and the candidates who answered. It was there that I learned much about human interactions as well as the electoral 'process'. If my experience is beyond the norm, then all I can say is that 'Norm' is uninformed and that is neither my responsibility nor worthy of my pity.

Then next time go out and organize one town hall meeting. The riding I live in is a rural one, we had a total of 9 spread all over the place, but in the larger 3 centers there was one in each, it was at one of the larger centers that the CONformer was absent (distressing to his supporters as they were there with signs and buttons etc).

Admittedly the high-school one was minor and I can understand the major parties giving it a pass as only about 1/3 or the students may be old enough to vote, but then the youth are the future and if the candidates cannot see that then so much for their powers of observation or desire to really, really serve the peoples interest.

There is no excuse for no town hall or all-candidate meetings, only the lack of interest among the populace in pushing their 'so-called' candidates into them.

then a confusing statement:

I suspect, I may be wrong in this so please correct if I am, that you are speaking of the nation as a whole?

If so, then the national percentage vote about this or that party is irrelevant. Yes irrelevant, except in deciding which leader will be approached by the GG to form a government.

Each riding decides its own representative separately, each voter chooses a candidate, a PERSON and not a party. Then a PERSON becomes elected as the representative for that riding and a Member of Parliament, with all the benefits and expectations that the office brings. The party affiliation is noted on these ballots, but the reality is each MP is an individual - there are party whips and the Party leader has the power to toss them out of caucus or not sign nomination papers in the next election etc (note that all of these things are punishments, not encouragements). But the voter does not VOTE for a PARTY, they do vote for a PERSON. Therefore, take this to heart, if you want to responsibly vote; get to know the person you are voting for.

Hi Murdock,

...first, let me clarify for all that I am not out there writing these articles because I am looking for work or clients. I am writing on this matter ..because there is a need to discuss such matters in the public sphere, not just from the ethical perspective but also from a legal perspective. I have put my contact details out there forthrightly to be of assistance in case someone wishes to contact me about these matters, if not, that is fine too.

Your view that this is a moral/ethical issue and not a legal one is not one that I agree with. It is both a moral/ethical issue - AND indeed there are 'legal" issues that can be identified. It is not so clear cut or simple as you think. Granted it is a complicated issue, but the matter & law of 'parliamentary privilege' is not above Charter scrutiny. I repeat, this is not the UK - parliament in not supreme in Canada. One one hand is the law as it pertains to 'parliamentary privilege' in Canada---and unless you have been reading up on those infrequently read 'tomes' --I am not sure on what basis you can substantiate your opinion that 'the privilege of an MP' rules the day..especially when there exist constitutional arguments to limit the scope of that privilege. The Charter is definitely applicable..and the Charter has never been applied to the question of 'parliamentary or Prime Ministerial privilege or perogative. The leading case of Figueroa lays out several fundamental points respecting s.3 Democratic rights of Canadian citizens: (a) the right entails more than a minimal right to cast a vote; (b) citizens have a right to "effective representation" - the full parameters of which still have to be delineated by the Supreme Court, - including devising a 'legalistic" test to determine if that right has been breached or not and to what extent; (c) citizens have a right to play a meaningful role in an election - what 'meaningful' means still has room for legalistic exploration - the question that arises here was that right 'abrogated' in these explicit circumstances, and lastly - and perhaps most importantly (d) sovereignty resides in the citizens of Canada as a whole - and once again the full meaning and scope of that still has not been clarified by any court of law--likely it means 'rights and responsibilities' - likely it means that it allows for our democracy to evolve through history as citizens, possessing that right, seek greater accountability, transparency, perhaps more 'checks & balances', perhaps modification to what is often seen as an excessive concentration of fiscal and political power in the Prime Minister & Premier's offices, perhaps relying on that 'sovereignty to approve referfenda, constitutional change, etc.

I appreciate your views Murdock - because they are 'ultraconservative' - diametrically opposed to mine- and diametrically opposed to the verity that the Charter must be applied 'broadly in a generous fashion'.

G West comments:

in the crude days of the 1780's the only way to get a large political debate was to visit the taverns or inns of an area. Possibly you could publish materials that might spark some debate or spread ideas but it was all very slow and not really inclusive.

now, with the advent of the internet and forums such as these we are able to interchange ideas, argue and deliver political points of view without encumberance (well without much encumberance) in a fast and efficient way (very efficient with the various links etc).

where else can so many clearly different points of the political compass come together and not do any more harm than bruised feelings?

I view this place as the starting of a great crucible of independant (or not so) thought and expression, the start of a new evolution of our democratic ideals.

call me polyanna or wearing rose-tinted internet goggles but I see the Tyee (and other)forums and blogs as an important side-step of the otherwise non-reporting, so called, 'main stream media'.

cheers

....When all is said and done --I doubt Mr. Emerson wil resign, I doubt that the protests & recall petition will have any effect, and I doubt that the NDP's proposal for a bill to prevent this kind of 'floor crossing' will be approved by Parliament. The only possible recourse is for the 20,000 citizens who signed the recall petition to donate $5.00 each...thereby equally $100,000 - which is likely what it would cost to take this whole matter in the Supreme Court of Canada so it can be properly sorted out. Will that occur - dubious too, regretfully. I think we both agree that the 'state of democracy' in Canada, when one reflects on the findings of the Gomery Commission and this 'crossing' matter so soon after a general election,- has sunk to a new 'low'. Unless citizens revive this ailing democracy - why, I ask, even bother to vote - answer me that Murdock? If you are a citizen in Vancouver-Kingsway, who donated monies to the Federal Liberal Party, put up lawn signs, made telephone calls, knocked on doors, attended fund raisers and all candidates meeting, and ultimately voted for Mr. Emerson and the the Liberal Party of Canada...why, next time...bother to vote? Did all those folks play a meaningful role in the election of their 'representative' or was it not, Murdock, some Kafkaesque charade they were involved in...ala. Franz Kafka's book "The Castle"? What do you think Murdock...put yourself in the shoes of such a citizen in Vancouver-Kingsway, what do others think. What are the options to obtain a remedy? (a) protest, (b) petitions, (c) write your MP, (d) hope that the NDP proposed bill passes and will be applied retroactively, (e) do nothing, (g) wait for the Ethics Commissioner to look at this, (g) get this matter into the courts and see how it settles. Those are the options - none else- that I can think of.

Peter Dimitrov mused:

to the points that nothing in the end will happen regarding the Emerson crossing, we agree. Mainly due to the simple fact that groups larger than 3 have a hard time making a decision, much less taking action regarding that decision.

regarding my thoughts, were I a foolish LiEberal supporter. 1) this man, Emerson was FORCED on the constituecy by Mr Dithers, no constituency actions - for that reason alone I walk away from the 'party machine' before the action even starts. From the performance of the recent train-wreck called the Liberal Party of Canada in the 2006, I suspect that many 'old-guard' LiEberals stood back and stayed out of the way while Mr Dithers and Co went on to defeat. 2) given that you now force me to think as some sort of 'party man' then as a 'party man' I take my direction from 'the party' and 'the party' has said nothing, Mr Dithers said he was shocked (three days after the event) and the other MP's have had little to say - because they cannot say anything as the Liberals have taken in crossing MP's to stay in power. If I am to think like a hypocrite, then I had better act like one; I do nothing. Just like all of the other LiEberals are doing now, nothing.

The problem of a sense of total worthlessness in those voters whom feel that way comes from a misunderstanding of what they are really doing when they vote for a PERSON.

I know the feeling, I have heard about it from young friends in Halifax, Montreal, Hull, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Victoria and Vancouver. I sensed it myself when Kim Campbell was elected leader of the PC's and saw the defeat coming long before any ballots were cast. For this sense I have a solution, see below.

So now onto your remedies.

First the $100,000, rather than waste that on your services in the Supreme Court, why not actually start a local campaign?
With a local candidate?
Why not make that an INDEPENDANT candidate? Why not use the money to actually get someone into the House that will have no other master than the people who elected him?

Too old fashioned, I know.

Perhaps a better use of $100,000 would be to really start a grass-roots campaign to really educate the electorate about what they are really doing when they vote. Teach them about the value of all-candidate meetings (LOCAL ONES) and how worthless the national leaders are in what they say (other than to their own constituents). Party platforms are of some value, but only minimal, the hot air from the leaders is worth less than the energy they expend in using it.

Your specific points:
(a) will only get you arrested, as many are discovering.
(b) will be ignored, which is why I will not sign such rubbish now.
(c) see (b)
(d) expecting the NDP to achieve anything in the Commons is folly.
(e) again were I a 'party man' this is what I would be doing. I am not so this is not an option.
(f) {labelled g above} the ethics puppy will do as his master commands, as this issue involves his master I expect the puppy will lick his boots.
(g) the waste of effort in the courts is worse than (b) or (c) as it takes too much energy and gives little satisfaction.

to be continued...

continued...

You have not proposed taking the funds or volunteer efforts or even the passionate anger that is frothing among the voters in Vancouver-Kingsway and using that energy and effort to prepare the ground for the next election, indeed such a good effort could be done as to shut out the LiEberals or the CONformers for a generation.

But then these thoughts are not the ones that come to mind at first blush.

I personally think that, were I an elector in the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, I would be very busy right now organizing just such an effort.

My actions right now might not be noticed, things such as collecting the names and contact #'s of the protestors. Pilfering the LiEberals and thier lists of contributors, volunteers etc for future contact. The meetings would be small and quiet right now, since the insane storm is going on all round. The group would be mostly silent, but very busy gathering the needed momentum to carry the next general election (or crazy byelection if the hair-on-fire-frothing-at-the-mouth crowd gets its way). This is all, of course, were I an elector in Vancouver-Kingsway, which I freely admit I am not.

Peter Dimitrov
The point about Murdock's musings, which you may or may not have gathered - (one has to look back over several of his posts since Feb 6 to get the picture and I assume you're probably too busy for that) - is that he is, at best, a libertarian and, at worst, an anarchist. I could speculate about a possible military background but I won't do that.

Although he pretends to be a knowledgeable legal authority he has never clarified exactly why one should accept his opinions as anything other than opinions and it seems likely he’s just a committed amateur.

The end he's interested in is, at best, a republic of British Columbia and, at worst, an every man for himself anarchist state.

Like a bulldog with a bone, he won't let go of the idea that Canada is a pale imitation of the UK and a place where the malign influence of political parties and a corrupt representative democracy is the first thing on his list of things to discard in the battle to push his agenda of the supreme individual. I don't know if he reads Ayn Rand, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Of course he's entitled to his opinions, but anyone who reads his posts ought to know where he’s coming from, in my view.

G West:
In regards to your first post after mine, organization and resolve could come out of that one. The concensus and participants are there. I'm willing to suggest that since writers are there like myself (if I could ever pry myself off this site), that editorials and investigative journalism with unions from good writers and journalists as a whole could draw excellent resources from the commentary alone, aside from the larger issue of addressing the need to organize towards positive change.

While its true that most of us contribute opinions with bits and pieces and leave it at that, some of us weave the threads together and write books and articles of our own that guide the social conscious to its needed destination. A story with the unions both pro and con, and their hurdles in the 21st Century with Neo Con agenda's and Corporate propaganda is quite needed in today's climate.

It hard to say where it will go for now. This site is still in its infancy. But certain things have been recognized. Can West is biased and, I suggest, in financial trouble. The economy is about consumption after all, and Can West sales can skid on failure to print the truth alone, or give market share to those sites on line and papers and TV outlets that are more bold such as CPAC on Sat or CBC that covers the general national issues. It is about survival of the fittest after all, and all media outlets are only as good as their journalists and editors. Knowing that CanWest is an income trust alone tells me that they won't be as dominant as they once were and for good reason.

As for your last post, I agree, or already have agreed with you, and to clarify the last quote... in regards to the majority of the voters in Emersons riding did not vote for Emerson, voted 18% Con and have never elected a Con.

And to add to the fact that the initial breakdown at least on moral terms, (not necessarily legal ones) begins with a broken contract between the MP who is elected and those voters who empowered the MP into their position of public service and trust. Once this contract has been broken, however legal or otherwise in terms of serving the will of the constituency as any true democracy runs on this in principle, the ownus, at least philosophically, lies with the voters incapablility of seeing it coming, but lets face it, voters aren't always properly prepped.

Anyone who's watched CPAC's interviews with the average voter's Q & A can see that most voters will vote with only a hand full of issues in mind (or less) when there are dozens to contemplate. This is a combination of media's failure either through incompetence or bias to fail to report the issues from most to least in terms of importance, as well as the voters apathy or free time to look.

The fact that Gun control and social issues took precidence over the budgets and spending prudence that make room to pay for them, or the way in which they were handled alone by the media, explains loads as to why people vote the way they do. Traditionally, along party lines. "How did I or my dad vote last time? Oh yah. That's how my early ancestors signed their name." :-)

Brain
No question the internet can be a valuable organizing and communications tool for political organization. Conservative fundamentalist Christian groups and their Republican fellow travellers in the US have proved that. They have also used it successfully to raise funds with which politicians can be purchased. I don't have any illusions but that similar groups have been and will be organized here in Canada to support Mr. Harper and his agenda. In fact, I'm sure it's an article of faith for the NCC to use the internet in this way. And the new office of Focus on the Family Canada will be groundbreakers in using these tried and true methods from the States. I'm sure you're familiar with the ginger groups of supporters who attach themselves to media outlets like right wing talk radio and magazines like Ezra Levant's Western Standard.

No doubt, there are similar and more progressive outlets and, of course, there is the Tyee. But, at least from my experience, individuals and groups that are not right-wing tend to be embroiled (perhaps paralyzed in a way) in the kind of thing I described in the post to which you were responding above (I think I addressed it to Allan). I'm just not sure this is the best way to move the effort along and I think we've fallen well behind the opposition in terms of organizational effectiveness. I don’t mean this to be a partisan thing, by the way, I think it’s not just Liberals, or the NDP or the Greens or any collection of nonconformist voters who need to be aware of the potential for danger here, in fact, I’d even suggest that Progressive Conservatives, as they were once known, should also be concerned.
Cheers.

G West:
Well, that's what we have here is views. No shortage.

Peter Dimitrov:
Appreciate your efforts and commentary. I believe you've summed it up best. As for your views on the immediate, I agree. I also agree with you that there are some legalities that should be pursued with the case against Emerson driven by the violation of democratic principles alone, perhaps even dating to the time Emerson spent as an MLA.

Certain things should be considered in launching a case against Emerson. The first is the public perception. MEDIA and public reacion. The public reaction with a court case against Emerson and/or Harper would definitely not favor the Cons in getting re-elected Federally.

As for the public perception with Harper and our Honorable Cabinet Minister David Emerson... most people don't realize how much intelligence he has his hands on, or why, especially considering his past history. More than ever, the spot light is under Emerson.

If I was a journalistic professional, which I'm not (yet), I would look at access to all newspaper stories of the past with Con favoring newspapers especially on what could have been reported in the Globe, Suns and Provinces when Emerson was a Lib. I'm sure I would find gems through searches by these means. To bad I don't work at these places. (such shoddy journalism these days)

You argue a case for the charter that a journalist or citizen could apply in writing before hand to Newspapers of their choice to have information that falls within the guidelines of the charter to not only be published without heavy editing, but especially so in the area of preparing the voters with the most important issues at hand, some of which have been adressed on this commentary thread, or risk being sued under the charter. Bluff alone with winning court case legalities, could be enough to pursue interesting courses of journalist and editorial strategy when it comes to addressing specific stay away subjects such as stories on the National Citizens Coalition. Interesting to know.

As well, is there any kind of democratic vote within the riding of Kingsway that can be legally done to create a mandate for a by-election itself? This too, would set a new precident if at all possible. Could it be legally respected if it was legally conducted? Just musing at the alternatives, if any.

I'm in for sending the money to Peter to help put this in a court. I also challenge all of the petition signers to follow suit. You'd piss that money away in a week on the lottery why not gamble on making a big difference in the way our governments ignore our needs.

i've "blogged" more than enough on this matter...but as a final post--here is some more legal info on 'parliamentary privilege' in Canada. - across from this sits the "Charter" and my aforementioned posts on this. Bye!

In order for a parliamentary privilege to exist in Canada, such privilege must have been held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament in the United Kingdom in 1867. This limit flows from the Constitution Act, 1867 and from section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, which provides that:

The Senate and the House of Commons, respectively, and the members thereof hold, enjoy and exercise

(a) such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the Constitution Act, 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof, in so far as consistent with that Act; and

(b) such privileges, immunities and powers as are defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, not exceeding those, at the time of the passing of the Act, held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof.

Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1

Constitution Act, 1867, section 18 (U.K., 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, as repealed and re-enacted by the Parliament of Canada Act, 1875, (U.K.), 38-39 Vict., c. 38, reprinted in R.S.C., App. II, No. 5 )

26. The first condition for the existence of a parliamentary privilege in Canada is therefore that the privilege was held, enjoyed and exercised by the British House of Commons in 1867.

Ainsworth Lumber v. Canada (A.G.) et al. (2003), 226 D.L.R. (4th) 93 (BCCA) at paras 42-44. Leave to appeal denied, SCC File no. 29842

Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No 1238 at para 27 (F.C.T.D.) .

Telezone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] O.J. No. 5, at para 18

I have read every post on the Tyee for almost 3 weeks now, silently, absorbing and learning from all of you. I am one of those naive voters that constitutes the majority of the Canadian Electorate. Brain, Fiat lux, G West, Coyote, Janet666, Avicenna, DPL, Peter - Thank-you! You and all the others have been my lifeline. Emerson & Harper shocked me awake. The Tyee posters helped me manage my anger and confusion (What is happening to Canada?) with your intelligent debate and reference links. I am not up to the level of informed debate required to be useful yet, but I am stubborn and committed. My purpose in commenting at all is to remind you that despite the disillusionment you feel from time to time, you are making a difference. Surely I am not the only silent participant, and I could not have found a better site to begin to educate myself. I am still hungry for more of your opinions and still enthusiastically your pupil - so keep on re-stating, regurgitating and expanding your views on this topic in any way you can find within your self. Keep it alive for me and all the other newly awaken sheep. (Refer to the posts on the Recall David Emerson site before the trolls destroyed it. People are ready to respond - they just need the as yet unknown impetus) Oh ya, my "handle" refers to the countless times I say this aloud as I read these threads - you have opened my eyes to so much and importantly - from multiple viewpoints. Whew! This was hard for me, but someone had to pat you on the back!

Interesting G West, please do remember that when you post that sort of trash about someone. Making those sort of references, you say more about your own character than you do about the other.

Murdock 6
What exactly do you mean?
Have you not said repeatedly that you want nothing whatever to do with party politics? Have you not maintained a certain affinity for the separatist aspirations of the Parti Quebecois?
Have you not said time an time again that you want to remove Ottawa from the political equation and bring government back to the people?
Have you not, repeatedly, suggested that the only really important thing is to 'down tools' and 'up the revolution'?
Have you not held forth lengthily and often on the pointlessness of a legal challenge to the constitutionality of Emerson's behavior?
Have you not argued more than once about the pointless meaning of a candidate's party affiliation according to British parliamentary precedent?

How does my making reference to what 'you' wrote have any possible impact on your character?

These are all things 'you' wrote, not me. In my opinion. In any case, if I’ve offended you, I’m sorry.

The only possible problem you could have had with what I said was my reference to anarchy and libertarianism. Those were my opinions based upon your own words, nothing more. So far as I know both those philosophies are perfectly reasonable approaches to the world. I don't happen to share them - but you're welcome to if you wish.

As to the Ayn Rand reference, I'd be surprised if you hadn't read her - if you haven't you might be interested.

Cheers

Ohmygawd
Dunno if the back pat is deserved or not, with respect to my meagre contributions at least, but thanks for the thought.
Cheers

Ohmygawd: ;-)

I for one hope that Peter is wrong (and I know that Murdock is wrong in his stance that any voter can be lied to and misled at the polls; a candidate's party reflects their supposed world view and leanings. Emerson swore on a Liberal platform on which he was elected, and the next day he abandoned both those constituents who took him at his word and his ethics). If this audacious (and unprecedented) act is to be swallowed as a bitter pill by Vancouver-Kingsway, then it is a complete failure of upholding either democracy or sanity by all of Canada. The good thing is that Harper and Emerson underestimated the wrath and nose for fairness of the people living in V-K, and I believe those wisened souls who have lived over 50 years in our riding who promise that they will see the "blunt knife in the drawer" replaced by a sharper model. Just watch the de-election of Mr. Emerson - and I really urge all those who are equally disgusted by these actions from a party that promised to clean up the ethics of our country (I'd hate to see their concept of unethical behaviour - and I'm a little queasy with their unnatural obsession with sparking the furor of the Canadian army; I have little doubt that if CRAP was in power when Bush administration went into Iraq - we'd have Canadians implicated in dehumanizing acts seen in Abu Gharib) to get involved in this process as it is sure to go down in the history books http://www.emersoncampaign.ca/index.html.

Here is a suggestion of a strategy to "combat" the DISHONOURABLE David Emerson (somewhat similar to the office sit in/occupation).

Individuals (in a great a number as possible of course) should try and book an appointment to speak with their (supposed) Member of Parliament.

In other words tie up his office with appointments. If he refuses to make an appointment keep track of all the failures to make an appointment (publish in media number of appointments not made; appointments made but Emerson a no-show,; and so on; also ask what the P.M. thinks of the inability to get an appointment with one of "his" M.P.s; al;so ask what the Conservative Party of Canada thinks about it, what the Conservative Riding Association thinks, and so on).

If the situation does not get resolved to the satifaction of the voters in the Riding, it will be a dis-service to democracy.

What say you?

My own take on this matter is located at http://mgcltd.blogspot.com/

The bottom line is that regardless of what brand name a candidate is running under, the fact is that we as citizens are electing individual MPs to Parliament.

Those Members of Parliament are then free to cross the floor, resign or support another governing party (as the NDP have done on more than a few occassions to prop up minority Liberal governments).

As audacious as Emerson's defection is, we must also factor in the judgement of the electorate which re-elected Scott Brison, Belinda Stronach and Keith Martin after they had all crossed over to the Liberals. I am sure that was also a factor in Emerson's thinking.

However what is owed is an apology by all those Conservatives and editorial cartoonists who heaped such sexist scorn on Belinda Stronach when she defected in a move that was only slightly less audacious than that of Emerson's.

For those that suggest he did it for the money I might add that like Stronach, Emerson took a substantial cut in pay when leaving the private sector in order to serve as an MP.

At the end of the day Stephen Harper recruited Emerson for exactly the same reasons as Paul Martin did. Emerson is there to do a job and get things done, not play politics.

mgeoghegan
The problem with this, as it has been from the beginning, is that Harper - upon whom this fiasco needs to be hung - was the guy who set the ethical agenda; the guy who said he'd do things differently; the guy who pretended to take a moral approach to government and responsibility; the guy, in fact, who screamed endlessly about corruption and accountability for the past two years. If that didn’t create expectations that he was going to be more ethical and responsible then nothing did! People voted for Harper to put a stop to Stronach- type opportunism – not to raise corruption and blindness to democratic principles to a new level of infamy.

Why do you think he's been so silent on the issue?

Could it possibly be because he sees the inconsistency in his own behavior and is simply prepared to hunker down until the smoke clears.

That's why it's important not to let the smoke clear and that's why apologists for Mr Harper's behavior sound so tinny when they play the mantra in the last graph of the above post. They ought to be ashamed!

G West:

Exactly.

My stomach turns when I hear the Apologists-they just do not get it!

I hope that this happens - someone, somehow, somewhere has to stop the swindlers, the liers, the deceivers even if they are politicians and we all expect everything but the truth so help me god. GO GET 'EM Dimitrov!!

Re: the issue of voting for the PERSON vs. the (PARTY)...Until we can elect the Prime Minister directly on a ballot and until all MP's are allowed a free vote on every motion on the floor of the house, we are forced to vote along party lines. Statistics show that Canadian prioritize a party first, the Prime Minister second and the individual riding candidates third in their voting selection process. Why the party is indicated in small print on a ballot is a mystery, as it belies to the true nature of the electoral choice.

By switching parties, Emerson effectively nullified over 20,000 votes. If we are to ever truly know whether he was selected as Emerson the man or Emerson, the Liberal candidate, a bi-election will very quickly show the truth.

This case can and will be argued in the courts. Votes have been nullified, ethics breached: action must be taken.

Thirdpig, pretty much spot on. Sure Murdock, you are voting for a person, but that person votes according to party platfrom almost 100% of the time. That riding wanted their votes to be on the liberal platfrom not the conservative. Caucus members don't often get away with voting against the party.

The other justification for Harper's behavior is that claptrap about wanting to ensure that Vancouver had representation in cabinet and, parenthetically, that Emerson was such a smart cookie that the PM couldn't build a cabinet without him. This too is nonsense and Harper and his media brain trust know it. The problem is there are no more than a handful of conservatives in this country that have the backbone to stand up and call this situation what it actually is, and the media, bless their hearts, aren’t much better.

If Emerson was so vital for his intellectual jam he could simply have resigned and accepted an appointment as Deputy Minister with responsibilities for the Vancouver Olympics and foreign trade. He might have been some use in that job because he'd still have some ethical credibility. Actually, I’m surprised Harper appointed Emerson if he’s such a bright light – I don’t think the PM is all that comfortable with anyone around him who actually has a brain.

As for the notion about representing Vancouver and its unique interests - Emerson could have done that equally well as deputy minister and 'official conduit to the Campbell government' (don't those guys know Harper's number?).

The hollowness about 'representation' for Vancouver as a motive for this skullduggery is further illustrated when one realizes that the biggest city in Canada has no cabinet representation to this day - Guess they do have phones in Toronto, eh!

G west
Your option for Emerson would have been a lot cleaner and easier for everyone to swallow.

I think that leaving Toronto out in the cold and quite deliberate, frankly I think I would have done the same, have read the Toronto Star far to much, it is quite amazing. They are really bent out of shape about it and threatening to leave, which I am sure would just break some hearts here in the rest of Canada. Toronto constantly sucked up to the Libs and yanked the CPC chain, now they have to live with what they sowed.

dang, you realize a grammer error just as you hit the post button...

That ain't just a grammatical error, dude.

Just one more thing that helps make the case.

Democracy and accountability be damned eh! Those buggers in Toronto can't be 'real' Canadians, can they?

They 'deserve' what they get I guess. Not much there to build a country.

Only us folks here in the west have the true religion.

Principles and slogans convince the poor dumb voters that democracy means something once every few years so they keep lining up for the lottery twice a week.

Booyah!

I think there is a clear difference between Belinda and emerson. she was a red tory, girlfriend of the lesser of the gang of 2. So, she probably heard things she could not stomach and which disgusted her. And so she left at no notice to give the people of canada and (more especially the red torys) a warning.
Emerson is quite different. His entire campaign was one huge lie.
Every thing he said was a lie. He lied to the liberal party, he lied to the voters and perhaps now he is lieing to himself. Deceit was at the heart of everything he did.
And Harper? This is just his first stab at democracy. Imagine how his backbenchers feel? Passed over for the post because Harper is not confident in their ability to tell outragous lies?
The ability to lie is now the greatest asset!
"We know you are smart, mr backbencher, but can you lie?
WELL? CAN YOU LIE!!!!??"
"Yes sir"
"dont believe you!"
"Why not?"
"You hesitated.
NEXT"
"Hello, double O E good to see you!
You are HIRED!"
"I am SOOO surprised, stevie, gosh what an honour"
"Ah shutup and take this flak jacket"

I am surprised that only politicians moving from left to right cause big "public" outcry.
Mr. Emerson is at least experienced professional in BC and federal government. He could do much more for Vancouver and Canada as a federal Minister than Liberal backbencher. On the other side the only qualification for Belinda Stronach was being a political "whore" (word used publicly in Parliament and newspapers at the time of her betrayal). Maybe billions of dollars she is bound to inherit from her father, owner of Magna International, have silenced or intimidated leftist perpetual complainers. Even what I considered Ontario Liberal Rag, that is "Glob and Mail" felt a wind blowing Conservative way and changed direction just before the election day. At least Mr. Emerson did not steal anything like Svend Robinson or two former Prime Ministers, who pretended not to know anything about half a billion dollars theft of taxpayers money I call Sodom and Gomery scam. They behaved like pianist in the brothel who claims that he does not know what ladies are doing upstairs. They were either incompetent or accessory to commit crime. Save you wrath on politicians like that. Leave Mr. Emerson alone, he could easily win by-election in any riding which has higher per capita income, less people on welfare and in public housing than Vancouver East, who should be grateful to the government for their benefits received at the expense of hard working taxpayers elsewhere.

Hey Laternik !

I Think You Should Get Your Ridings Right Before You Start Spewing Your Right Wing Apologist Stupidity...vancouver Kingsway ...

And Emerson More Than Likely Could Win In The Ridings Of The Creme De Le Creme....he's Their/your Kind Of Weasel...

I was not writing about Vancouver East riding, but about anything East of Ontario Street as far as Boundary Road. It is unfortunate, but some of this area includes the lowest income Postal Codes in Canada. There will always be more tenants than landlords in such areas. There are slum landlords preying on poverty and human misery and honest politicians should ameliorate such problem. There is no Right Wing and Left Wing, there is RIGHT idea of honest and WRONG idea of the gangsters. I am familiar with history of murderers using popular uprising to change one ruling class into another, much more cruel and unscrupulous. That counts from Cromwell's, French and Bolshevick, Nazi or Chinese (Cultural or not cultured) Revolutions. Socialist slogans were abandoned as soon as gangsters got into positions of absolute power and genocide and famine followed. If somebody has a different opinion on that subject; let's have it, but no personal insults.

Latarnik: are you foaming at the mouth?
Are you telling us that Emerson is Mr. Right and his opponents are gangsters?

Mr Latarnik

Is that kinda like Harper promising to be moral and do politics better and differently and more ethically than the terrible corrupt Liberals while he's trying to get elected and the minute he comes to power the platitudinous slogans go out the window and offers nice things to one of those terrible immoral Liberals to intice him to 'come on over'? Not so very different than what you decry, is it? And, if he behaves this way in the green stick, what will he do in the dry?

Hi Gloomy,
I am not foaming from any orifice, I did not say that all Mr. Emerson opponents are gangsters, but I recommend reading all esseys at lysanderspooner.org to find out about real rulers of the world. Written 150 years ago, still holds true. Reading it in Communist China could result in becoming involuntary organ donor, so it must contain some dangerous truth. In Soviet Union and its colonies even mentioning knowledge of it or Protocols of Elders of Zion, or Soviet defeat by Polish Army in 1920, could send people to populate cold Northern Siberia. Let us be fair and truthful. Truth may be painful, but should be free to print and say.

Hi G West,
Just wait and see. I agree that

during election campaign maybe just that. Soviet constitution was one of the best, it gave citizens all the rights possible, except property rights (similar to Canadian) and what happened? Let's give Premier Harper some time to rule without any help from NDP. During his election campaign he stated that if somebody feels that NDP is a viable alternative to Liberals, he is like a man who does not like an organ grinder and would rather vote for his monkey. Strong statement but how true. Mr. Layton in his campaign was saying that Mr. Harper is destroying working families. I wonder how? He did not elaborate. How could he? There was nothing to say, just empty insults.

Mr Latarnik
I wonder that you'd bring up Jack Layton since he was not the subject we were discussing. You seem a little sensitive on that point. But, as I said before Mr. Harper is certainly capable of making 'empty insults' and dissembling with the best of them - as your quotation from him illustrates. I could cite others.

No doubt, you appreciate Mr. Harper's seemingly unembarrassed adoption of the need to tell a few Straussian ‘necessary’ lies along the way to some greater 'truth'. In addition, you talk about the Soviets' not fulfilling the letter of their constitution. One wonders, as I said, what we can expect in the dry wood when the green bends so supplely.

As for the anarcho-socialist Lysander Spooner, what exactly would a country run according to his precepts look like, I wonder? Perhaps something like the 'social credit' of the Scotsman C.H.Douglas as realized in William Aberhart's Alberta. I should have thought you might pick a more modern avatar for your philosophical role model, Ayn Rand perhaps!

Cheers my friend.

So now (apparently-how much can you trust the man!) Emerson will run in the next federal election (when it comes) as a Conservative!

So who really believes him!!!!!!!!!!

If he does, and the Liberals win a minority/majority will he then be piniong to be asked to move to the Liberals "where he can best serve his constituency and BC?!!!!!!!!!!!
(tongue in cheek!)

Wow, interesting that there is still debate on this post. How on earth can anyone justify what David Emerson did unless, of course, you accept that every underhanded sleezy effort to personally benefit in politics is justified if you can just pull it off.

In a better world David Emerson would be tarred and feathered, burned in effigy and sent packing like some greedy carperbagger, caught trying to pilfer the silverwear.

Saturday's Post (someone pointed the story out to me), had a grovelling business type brownnosing piece giving an Emerson-only view of why this corporate pirate should be hailed a hero.

Now today, the Globe comes out with a similar "I'm going to stand up for my rights" rant from Emerson.

The theme is the same, How could anyone not recognize that the sun shines on David Emerson and that Vancouver and BC will benefit greatly from our "hero"'s fast footwork.

Not a damned mention about how the majority of voters in Vancouver-Kingsway may feel cheated.

David Emerson so typlifies what is wrong with Canadian politics. Too much corporate control, as is expressed by a greedy and manipulative individual, who will say whatever he feels will get votes.

Ethics are so far out the window with this capitalist porker that he won't even surface in a public forum where he might have to defend his deeds to V/K voters.

That mainstream media is supporting his long-distance defence of sleeze says much about how many markers this corporate pirate can call and get right into the editorial departments.

David Emerson has become the new face of unethical greed in Vancouver, in BC and in Canada. I nominate him as Porker of the Year.

Have a read, released today on counterpunch.ca by author John Ryan. Required reading for all Canadians, in my opinion.

Ohmygawd
This is the link, It's dated Jan 31 so it may well have been published elsewhere previously:

http://www.counterpunch.org/ryan01312006.html

G West: Thanks - again :)

allan, I second that nomination--as always from a guy with a morally enlightened view of things. (allan, not Emerson)

Emerson abused his constituents as did Harper the country, by accepting this disgusting sleaze.

thank you Truman. He certainly did abuse them and it makes me cringe when some say there's nothing wrong with jumping ship like this.

All we schmucks are told to get on with life, quit complaining and vote according to our conscience. After all, voting is about as close as we the tax payers get to participating in this great democratic model.

That is the context through which Emerson's casual walk across the floor came to be possible and ought to belooked at.

A majority of simple people exercising what they are told it the ultimate in democratic freedom, choosing who will represent us through which party.

But no, Emerson, ever vigilante for the opportunity to improve his own lot, bails on the Liberals, bails on the voters and then wonders what the fuss is all about.

It's all about business as usual, it would appear.

Ohmygawd

Now you can read most of Ryan's piece right here on the Tyee. Looks like you've moved ahead of the curve.
Cheers

Hi, G. West. Omni 10 didn't run the Eye to Eye, Jim Cantelon interview with Mark Tyndall, as producer, Ms. Gratton indicated to me on the telephone that they would. I don't know why. Hope you're doing research at all the dissident websites such as virusmyth.com and rethinkingaids etc. For more info. go to the Danielle Egan article here on Tyee entitled: "Aids vaccines, how risky are they?"

Stephen Lewis is apparently at the Hyatt Regency in Vancouver tonight with all his propaganda about Aids in Africa.

Click on , "Africa" when you get to the Virusmyth.com site.

All the best.

Truman Green
Yep, I noticed they didn't rebroadcast the interview. I had it on my calendar and left for work late so I could watch it. Too bad.

As I said before ( I think the comments section where we were discussing this was closed shortly after that) I just can't accept what you're saying as factual. It requires a conspiracy so deep and profound as to be inconceivable, in my opinion. I've looked at the material you pointed out and I'm not convinced. I happen to know some people who are fairly well-placed in the volunteer community and I've run your ideas (and the websites) by them as well as discussed them with my son.
You are more than welcome to believe these things and you'll know (if you've read anything else I've posted on this site) that I am, I think, a reasonable and thoughtful person. If events transpire to change my mind about this I'll be the first one to acknowledge that I've been mistaken.

Cheers.

Hi, G. Here's some forensics you can do yourself. According to today's province article on that guy who got 15 years for infecting his girlfriends with HIV, there are 50,000 HIV positive people in Canada and 11,000 HIV positive people in BC. If HIV really causes AIDS and if AIDS is really a fatal disease, all of these people will be dead in 10 years or so. ONLY 94 PEOPLE DIED IN CANADA OF AIDS IN ALL OF 2005, according to Statistic Canada website, which you can click on to by going to the Danielle Egan article on tyee entitled, "Aids vaccines, how risky are they?" and following the comments until you come to the link.

G. West, ole buddy. HIV is harmless. It doesn't cause AIDS. AIDS is not a contagious or infectious disease. There is probably NO aids in Africa.

The cause for AIDS can be found in the book, "Unravelling AIDS by Mae-Wan Ho, Sam Burcher, Rhea Gala and especially Vejko Velkovic.

G. West, if you really think the death rate from HIV/AIDS is going to go from 94 in 2005 to 50,000 in say 2015-2020, then you might reconsider.

Or if you don't see the obvious nonsense in these claims of HIV being a fatal illness, then I'm afraid nothing will convince you in this matter.

G. West, I think you're having difficulty accepting that this much evil could actually exist in human society.

Well, did Europeans actually enslave blacks for four hundred years? (four hundred years of Abu Graib prison)

Did Europeans steal the lands comprising this wonderful democracy of Canada from industrially and militarily powerless people, then abuse, murder, and humiliate them with reservations, residential schools and smallpox blankets?

Did Rwandans actually butcher 800,000 thousand of their neighbours with sledge hammers and machetes?

Did Hitler gleefully start a war to see how many people he could kill, and did the Germans line up by the hundreds of thousands at Nuremberg to scream their praise and love for him?

This is our species, G. West. The evil among us us is probably too frightening for most of us to acknowledge.

There's not a single chance in a trillion that HIV causes AIDS, and if I could find a physician who I could trust, I'd be happy to be infected with that silly little virus myself.

If you ever start to see the truth, which may cause great spiritual suffering, look me up in the phone book and give me a call.

You're going to need someone to talk to.

Kudos for your intellectual honesty, though. It will cover with you with a special kind of grace.

headline: "Harper to be Investigated by Ethics Commissioner in Emerson Affair". Should I hold my breath on this one?

G West:
I try to reign in my compulsion to put my two cents in to no avail. I must say that becoming more politically aware at this stage in the game is somewhat like getting confirmation that I have a terminal illness. It is a relief to know the un-wellness I have been feeling is not imagined and I can now put a name on it. The problem is that it is still life threatening. The concern now is for those that do not have symtoms that something is wrong yet. I will continue to listen in hopes of finding a cure.

Ohmygawd
Not sure about that cure! There is an interesting discussion going on at the Ryan related site above although it's hard to keep it on track when people go off on tangents like whether or not the atom bombs on Japan were justified. I did hear about the ethic commissioner agreeing to investigate Harper. I expect we shouldn't hold our breath.

I do have a feeling there is something else going on in the background on the Emerson issue - you might want to keep your eyes and ears open on the weekend. Not that I know anything definite.

Don't hesitate to write about what you're thinking. Everyone has to start somewhere - two months ago I wasn't involved either. Some things just push one too far I guess.
Cheers.

Truman Green
Nice that two people can disagree can remain civil about it. I don't disagree with anything you said about the human capacity for evil and I'm as upset about Amherst and the smallpox blankets, the West and Rwanda and all of the other examples you've mentioned. Only I'd probably add a few more: Angola; Sierra Leone; Darfur; the Belgian Congo' Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, and Nicaragua to name just a few recent examples.
So we don't disagree about the human capacity for evil and mendacity; still, as I said earlier, I'm not convinced about the HIV/Aids thing and I don't agree with what you've said about Stephen Lewis either. In a way, such a conspiracy is just, from my point of view, excessively complicated and contingent for it to be true. If you apply Occam's razor to it, the answer always comes out as far closer to the conventional explanation than it does to your conspiracy theory.
Nevertheless, as I've said before, I'll keep reading and listening and I assume you'll do the same.
Cheers my friend.

G, your use of occam's razor is a bit, well...uh, underdeveloped. If you can find your beatup copy of Stephen Hawking's, "A Brief History of time," he gives a simple, yet elegant explanation of the concept, which the truly enlightened always use as reminder of the value of this "principle of economy."

He describes how Heisenberg, (the discover of the uncertainty principle) Erwin Schrodinger, (remember Schrodinger's black box with the cat inside, maybe) and Paul Dirac employed this principle to come up with a NEW theory called QUANTUM MECHANICS.

Occam's razor is not about the validity of the "conventional explanation" of anything, as you suggest, actually quite sophomorically (sorry) but rather cutting out the part of a theory which cannot be observed.

The HIV/Aids theory has become the conventional theory. It is very complicated and surreal. To apply occam's razor to it we would all instantly conclude:

1. the virus has never been properly isolated.
2. what mechanisms it uses to destroy CD4s has never been explained.
3 the tests used to locate it in human plasma are neither specific or sensitive.
4. over 70 pathological conditions have been identified which can render a positive HIV test, in the absence of HIV
5. the presence of antibodies means that a pathogen, (antigen) has been present, and in the absence of disease, it means that the immune system has defeated it.
6.Haart (highly activated anti-retroviral therapies) kill and injure people
7.AZT, discovered in l964 to treat cancer is a killer because it destroys any and all cells in the body by compromising mitichondria and hence, ATP the molecule which supplies energy to the body.
8.HIV was basically chosen at random among thousands of viruses that are continually floating around all living organisms.
9. It could never cause AIDS or any other disease because it is too weak to cause any disorder within a few days or weeks.
10. Most of the deaths (probably 80%) of people who have died of "AIDS" have been poisoned by AZT, nevirapine (Stephen Lewis'favourite) or HAART therapies.
11. "Aids" as it has been called in Africa is just a convenient and lucrative word to use to describe any one of many pathological conditions common among poverty-stricken, immune-depressed and starving people.

In Africa it is diagnosed by use of a "clinical case definition." At the height of this debacle, the Tanzanian government actually narrowed the definition to the presence of ONLY ONE PATHOLOGICAL condition, such as weight loss or persistent diarrhea.

"Aids" in Africa is diagnosed WITHOUT AN HIV test.

I could go on for hours, but it's all finally coming into the mainstream press, in spite of the criminals who have been trying to keep it out. READ: OUT OF CONTROL, AIDS AND THE CORRUPTION OF MEDIAL SCIENCE BY CELIA FARBER IN HARPER'S MAGAZINE March 1, 2006

You can read the Harper's Magazine article on line by going to mindfully.org then clicking on "health" then clicking on "Out of control Aids and the corruption of medical science," by Celia Farber/Harper's magazine March 1, 2006

Truman Green
Good to hear from you again. As for Occam's Razor, let's remember that it can cut both ways. As for Heisenberg and Quantum Mechanics lets not go there either. One of my other sons is doing graduate work in high energy physics.
As for the Harpers article, I'll certainly read it and I've forwarded it to someone who knows a lot more about adverse drug reactions than I do.
I certainly don't mind pursuing this but I think it'd be better if we could avoid posting this stuff in a forum that's completely unrelated - any ideas?
CHeers.

Hi, G.West. I must admit that it's interesting corresponding with you on this issue, but I'm also using this blog to get the word out as much as I can. It is my hope that others will read it and do their part, too. Thousands of people are being poisoned to death every day by so-called anti-retroviral drugs.

One thing you can do on your own is to do a study of AZT, the l964 cancer drug that everyone admits is responsible for thousands of deaths, and was quietly discontinued, without anything about its toxity being reported in the mainstream press.

The Harper's article is not only about adverse drug reactions but actually recounts EVERYTHING I've been telling you about the insane lie that HIV causes AIDS.

Aids is caused by something that either happened TO or BY the homosexual community in three major American urban areas during the 80's: Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York.

My best guess is that it was the use of "poppers" or sexual enhancers that were delivered by way of inhalants. These are comprised of various kinds of nitrites which are known to destroy the immune system.

There is a very good possibility that Aids is a result of biological warfare research gone wrong. The truth may never be known.

But one thing is positive. Aids is not caused by a harmless virus, that can be detected in any human being with one or several of 70 different pathological syndromes.

Truman Green
Like I said, I'll read it. I still feel a bit out of place debating this here.
Unfortunately, Bob Guccione is a bit of a red flag for me so I'll take it slow and look at what she says and not who facilitated her journalistic start.
Cheers

wow
thanks for this Truman Green...I`ve got the March Harpers sitting on my table ..I`m going to read the article tonight.

I have a lot more questions..but maybe this isn`t the place..

You can read the article at mindfully.org.

Also: http//www.virusmyth.net
http//www.virusmyth.com
http//www.aras.ab.ca
http//www.healaids.com
http//www.reviewingaids.org/awiki

and: http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/...sident_websites

G.West, trying to denigrate Celia Farber's character by mentioning Bob Gucione (before you even read her article) is as mature as your use of Occam's Razor to celebrate the validity of conventional wisdom.

Try virusmyth.com

And before we get closed down, here's my advice to anyone who gets an hiv positive test. It doesn't mean anything except that your immune system's reacting to any one or several of at least 70 pathological syndromes.

Stay away from the illegal drug culture and community. Don't use poppers. Try to eat nourishing food. Ignore your doctor's insistence on using highly activated anti-retrovial therapies. They are all poisons. And don't participate in any clinical trials.

My credentials: none. I'm a mostly-retired self-employed carpenter.

Truman Green
I did read her article. And I said I'd consider what she's saying. And I will!
I still have a problem with Bob Guccione. I don't think there's any inconsistency there - just honesty!
As for the Occam's razor thing, you must know that I was using it in a literary and figurative sense - and that was my reason for my subsequent response to your somewhat unkind, and, if truth be told, uncalled for putdown.
Anyway, as I've said numerous times I will do the research and, somehow or other, get back to you. Unfortunately, you're not the only one who has other work to do.
Cheers, and, really - no hard feelings.

Seems the PM would have liked to get rid of Mr Shapiro. I wonder why? This guy really is a piece of work.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1141771812171&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

G.West, yes ol' Stephen is certainly showing his true colours these days.

I'd certainly not want to be his press assistant, because who ever it is has to mouth some pretty disgusting comments on behalf of Harper, who looks like a complete ass.

Frankly, Harper's handling of the ethics commissioner is the best thing that voters in Vancouver-Kingsway have seen since David Emerson abandoned his commitment and responsibilities to them.

I certainly hope Avicenna and her fellow residents are getting some hope out of this stupidity by Harper.

It would seem Harper's only recourse, if he wants to follow through with his attacks on Shapiro is to take the matter into the House to explain his plans to dump the commissioner.

Of course that then makes Emerson's sleezy slither over to Conservativeness a topic for discussion by the full House where all the warts associated with corporate style dealmaking will be offered up for review.

Best thing to happen to David Emerson since he screwed the voters, in my humble opinion.

Turn the screws a bit tighter there Stephen and I think someone will talk.

There's nothing wrong with considering the source of any article, G.West, but you might do better to question the credentials of Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's editor than to just drop the name of Bob Gucionne without explaining what you're getting at.

If you think an editor of Lapham's reputation for due diligence is going to somehow be corrupted because one of his writers has an acquaintance with Bob Gucionne, of Penthouse Magazine fame, then you should fill us in on what you know, rather than just dropping Gucionne's name.

Otherwise, I will concede to you that the source of a writer's inspiration is always important. Celia Farber has written extensively on the pharmaceutical industry relationship with the N.I.H. and its willingness to give a pass to pharmaceuticals doing HIV/AIDS drugs WITHOUT THE CRUCIAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE CLINICAL STUDIES BE CONDUCTED WITH RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-BASED REQUIREMENTS, which is one of the greatest revelations of her article.

She makes no claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, as I have, but rather presents the opinions of other scientists such as Peter Duesberg who agrees with me.

Locally, David Baines did an article for the
Vancouver Sun in which he questioned the efficacy of the popular herbal cold remedy, Cold FX. It was a fairly well research article and Baine's conclusion was that the claims of the manufacturer might have been exaggerated.

In itself, this seems like an appropriate consideration of herbal drug efficacy. But the larger question might be: Whose idea was it to do the story, and how do these drugs compare with the cold remedies developed and marketed by the big pharmaceutical companies? I have read at least one opinion that the famous drug remedies marketed by the pharmagiants don't work as well as claimed, also.

Near the end of Baine's followup story in today's Sun, he presents the opinion of Alan Cassels, project leader for Media Doctor Canada, who congratulates both the Sun for the article and CV Technologies for their adherence to the need for drug trials to be "randomized."

I hereby challenge both Baines and Cassels to look into the question of whether the HIV/AIDS anti-retrovirals such as nevirapine and AZT (a discontined l964 cancer drug) and its newer generation of HAART theapies were developed with consideration of randomized, double-blind, placebo based requirements.

Celia Farber claims that they were not.

Truman Green
Look, I know who and what Guccione is and that's why I mentioned it. I think he's a meat salesman of the worst kind and I think his journalistic efforts are 'pretentious', to put it mildly. I also know who Lewis Lapham is and I respect his work, although I wish he'd given his son better advice on a choice of mate; but then, as they say, love is blind. The fact that Harper’s has printed Farber’s article does make it more credible, at least on the face of it – I have no problem admitting that.

I've been trying to assess and gauge reactions to Farber's piece in Harper's without much success. For the most part it seems she's either below (or above as the case may be) the radar of all the usual commentators. I can't decide whether this is willful ignorance or fatigue because she's been saying the same thing so often and for so long.

I'm working on it. Don't assume because I haven't said anything further about the subject that I've dismissed the matter. Right now I see there are about 4 or 5 issues involved in this question so you're going to have to be patient. On the other hand, in fairness, you’ve said that one of the reasons you want to debate this in public (here at the Tyee) is that you’re trying to educate people and, forgive me, proselytize for your point of view. I don’t have a problem with people who do that generally – especially in a political context: But, in circumstances where people’s health is involved and decisions might be made by individuals about whether or not or in what way they seek health care on the basis of what a couple of amateurs like us might post in a public forum I think it would be irresponsible. I’m not prepared to do that, at least until I’m clearer about the issues and the possible answers to the questions of causality, treatment and the role of drug therapies. Please don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not criticizing your commitment or your motives. You’re obviously satisfied that your conclusions are the right ones so go ahead and proselytize – as for me, I’m just not prepared to do that - or be part of your attempt to do that - until I’m a lot more convinced you’re on the right track.

So, in conclusion, I’ll look at the situation and think about it and I’ll let you know when I’ve made up my mind. I hope you’re not upset with that but I think it’s the only responsible thing to do under the circumstances.
Cheers.

G. West:
Thought I'd come here where it is quiet, to mention another article I read. I found it on straightgoods.ca "CEOs set agenda for foreign policy talks". Also found the original under the site for Common Frontiers Canada. Common Frontiers reporter Rick Arnold wants to warn that "allowing CEOs to set the foreign policy agenda for North America endangers democracy in Canada". I guess we have to trust Mr. Harper's "accountability" on this, huh? Looks, from this article, that this fledgling Conservative gov't might accidentally or informally integrate our military, too. "Common Frontiers and the Quebec Network on Hemispheric Integration are concerned that the Canadian Parliment has been sidelined in the face of an agreement that binds Canada's future to the security imperatives of the Bush administration. It is unacceptable that in a democratic society like ours information critical to the future direction of our country is being withheld from the public". Dated March 6th, 2006.

OMG
merci. I'll have a look, it is quiet here, isn't it? I wouldn't trust Harper with a stubby pencil, by the way. Notice how he's playing to Quebec and the provinces, step one in the republicanization of this poor dumb innocent country. There's a lot of work to do.
Cheers.

G West:
Never a dull moment. I see Ed Broadbent is pissed at Mr. Harper about Shapiro. Caught that on CTV.ca. Can't wait to wake up tomorrow!

I listened to Will McMartin and Moe Sahota on CBC saying Emerson is politically "dead" and I agree. Whatever the legal niceties of the case, in the court of public opinion Emerson is a bum and guilty as hell. Personally I still think he should resign and that Vancouver/Kingsway voters and others should keep up the pressure until it happens. However, I think it will be a long time before Harper or any other PM attempts such a blatant floor crossing venture. The political cost of the Emerson affair has been just too high. In that sense, an important victory has already been won.