HARPER QUOTES

Stephen harper in his own words:

Over the years, Stephen Harper has said a number of things that a great many Canadians would be shocked, and even appalled, to learn that they were said by someone who is now our Prime Minister. The following is just a sampling of those quotes:

"Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been. ... As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed."

Calgary Sun newspaper column, 2001
"You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."

Report Magazine, 2001
"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."

"Firewall Letter", 2001
"That's why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law."

Speaking as head of the National Citizens Coalition, 1998
"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

Interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report newsmagazine, 1999
"This government's only explanation for not standing behind our allies is that they couldn't get the approval of the Security Council at the United Nations - a body [on] which Canada doesn't even have a seat."

CTV's Question Period, March 30, 2003
"I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."

Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997
"[Y]our country [the USA], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."

Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997
"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"

Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997
"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance."

Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status ..."

Op-ed article in the National Post, December 12, 2000
"Now 'pay equity' has everything to do with pay and nothing to do with equity. It’s based on the vague notion of 'equal pay for work of equal value,' which is not the same as equal pay for the same job."

National Citizens Coalition Overview, Fall 1998
"For taxpayers, however, it’s [pay equity] a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That’s why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law."

National Citizens Coalition Overview, Fall 1998
"Whether Canada ends up as one national government, or two national governments, or several national governments or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."

Quotes courtesy of abc@hotmail.com, ABC Canada: Thank you.

THE END OF THE LIBERAL EMPIRE – Andrews Coyne, Maclean’s April 12

There is no doubt that the Liberals are in political purgatory; but while it might be the end of empire, the party could still reach the Promised Land. The days of the wide-ranging economic and social changes of the Pearson area will not likely return soon, and while there are important issues the Liberals can latch on to –such as pension reform, democratic reform and the environment; these do not engage the public imagination and interests that the Pearson and early Trudeau years provided, with such matters as Medicare, the flag debate, capital punishment, government in bedrooms and the repatriation of the constitution, etc. Even Brian Mulroney had some major issues and controversies; the Free Trade Agreement and the GST comes to mind; not to mention his failed attempts at accommodating Quebec.

The BIG IDEAS of yore are probably just that: in our past. Globalization, economic and communal, has made it much harder for individual governments to make radical changes in the socio-economic structure without endangering the national economy. The changes we make will be incremental and aligned with the world economy and the US in particular. We are in the same boat –sink or swim.

The Conservatives now have the political centre-right, and even if they just maintain the status quo; they could hold on to power for a long time. Nothing the Liberal strategists can cook up is likely to change that. There is a general resistance to major changes in the population, with a demographic getting older and more conservative; a steady- as-she-goes course is the best policy for the incumbents. That, I fear, will leave the Liberals with only the single hope that the Conservatives will make a serious blunder. Even if they don’t make a major, decisive one, they seem quite able to do so in incrementally. In our multi-party system, with one party, the PQ holding the majority Quebec votes and the NDP and Green party picking at the fringes, I don’t see much hope for a majority for any party in the near future. Yet, Lester Pearson did all right without ever having a majority.

The only other hope for the Liberals, I fear, is to elect a new leader with some charisma and verve to engage the public imagination and emotion; but, having stumbled twice, it is not likely that the Liberal leadership will have the courage to make such a dramatic change, at least not until they are staring down the precipice. By then, however, the time is night and the end is nigh.

Canada warms to idea of a tougher ‘perimeter’ –Star Dec. 27th

[Letter to the editor]

And it’s about time. The days of defining ourselves as “not American” belong to another era.

We Canadians have always been ambivalent about our relationship with the US – a kind of sibling rivalry with our bigger brother to the south. We pretend that our “culture” is different and must be protected –at any cost. We worry about being swallowed up by the huge entity south of our borders, all the while selling them everything from soup to nuts; and hollering “uncle” when they balk at buying our stuff, as in “Buy American”; or put an import duty on our lumber export. We often act like spoiled brats, wanting all of the benefits but none of the responsibilities that go with a fair, neighbourly relationship. We gladly take the protection the American can give us, as long as they don’t step on our “toes”, or as we say, “sovereignty”.

Prime Minister Harper had that one right: “Threats to the Unites States are threats to Canada”. Let’s take our fair share of the burden of defence; we are two democracies with much in common, both economically and culturally. A common defence perimeter and an open border is a good start.

Yankee gun boats off Newfoundland? What about Portuguese and Spanish trawlers cleaning out the cod on the Grand Banks? Guns flowing northward –who are we kidding? They are flowing now, nay, it’s more like a torrent.

If Europe, with its many languages, different cultures and history of wars can get together with a common border and currency; should not we, North-Americans, with a common language ( mostly) and history, manage to do as much? What do you think would happen to us if Americans really closed the border? They can do without us –we cannot do without them. Sell more to Europe? Trudeau tried that and failed miserably, and he did not even have the European Union to contend with. Get real, Canadians; remember the old adage “you cannot have your cake and eat it too!” Be grateful that we have a strong, peaceful neighbour to mollycoddle us and let us have our vaunted Medicare and social safety net, while giving pittance in return.

Prisoner issue turns into dangerous test of wills –James Tavers in The Star, Dec.12th.

I am disappointed and chagrined to see the Afghan prisoner transfers problem turn into another political standoff in our Parliament. Prime Minister Harper seems to have a penchant for brinkmanship, but this issue could become a constitutional debacle.
We are at war in Afghanistan, and these things happen in war. If an error was made, it can be corrected for the future, without using it as a political football. Talk of an inquiry is as foolish as is Harper’s intransigence. It ought to be possible for men of good will to resolve this tempest in a teapot and get on with solving real problems.

Millions wasted in welfare programs –Toronto Star, Dec.8/09.

Dalton McGuinty and his fellow Liberals are leaving a trail of ill conceived projects and mismanagement of the public purse. Following such scandals as eHealth and the OLGC, we now have waste and fraud in its welfare system (Community and Social Services Ministry), and sloppy management of other areas of responsibility.

While governmental waste is nothing new, McGuinty’s government, which came in with promises of responsible and honest government, seems especially prone to financial missteps and carelessness in managing its economic affairs. While expanding the civil service, it has relied excessively on overpaid consultants in many of its agencies, while picking the consumer’s pockets with the harmonization of the PST/GST.

I am not implying that Premier McGuinty is dishonest. I am saying that he is a poor manager. He needs to demand better performance and greater accountability from his Ministers, and the various agencies that seems to be doing their own thing without much accountability.

An American in Italy, guilty of murder –The Star, Saturday Dec.5th

Amanda Knox, in a drug, alcohol and deviant sex frenzy, took an active part in the killing of her roommate Meredith Kercher. Only the killer’s identity was ever in question, and is now, beyond reasonable doubt, established.

I find it incongruous that the American media, in unison, are excoriating the Italian court, police and society in general, while defending and excusing the accused and now convicted killer. Little is heard about the victim and her family, and their pain caused by this evil trio.


I cannot but think how this story would have played out if the “shoe was on the other foot”; if an Italian citizen had murdered an American girl. The press would no doubt be then extolling the fairness and impartiality of the American justice system, after which they would find her guilty and sentence her to death.

STOP THE LAMA LOVE-IN – Andy Lamey in Maclean’s Nov.30th

While your Mr. Lamey makes some valid points regarding the Dalai Lama, I must take issue with a few of his comments, viz comparing the Dalai Lama to Mandalea and South Africa. Mandalea was fighting apartheid within his own country, and while generally peaceful, his ANC Youth League, after the Sharpsville Massacre in 1960, was outlawed, and Mandalea was put on trial for treason; but the trial collapsed in 1961and Mandalea was set free.

Later, he joined with other leaders in an organization called Umkhoto we Zizwe, which advocated armed struggle. Put on trial for his life in Rivonia for illegal exit and for sabotage (his organization blew up some power lines), he made the famous defensive speech partly quoted by Mr. Lamey. While Mandalea was not a terrorist, neither was he a peacenik, and the comparison of him to the Dalai Lama is rather fanciful. A better comparison would be Mahatma Gandhi who did fully embrace non-violent resistance. Yet, also he was operating from within his country, and though he faced a colonial empire, it was a liberal-democratic one, tired of war and ready to compromise. Hardly today’s China.

To imply that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans should take up armed resistance towards China is just foolish. With its 2,300,000 population and less than 500,000 square miles of territory, it stands zero chance in armed conflict with a ruthless and totalitarian regime of 1.4 billion Chinese. To do anything but sending his regards and prayers for a successful Olympics would have given the Chinese leaders great ammunition against the Tibetans. Even with his good will towards their Olympics, he was accused of interference and anti-Chinese agitation. Mr. Lamey’s comment about the equivalent moral case of armed resistance of France against Nazi Germany in WWII is just as naive. France was assisted by the Allies, with the Free French army in England; hardly the situation with Tibet and China.

The comment about Dalai Lama’s epicurean tastes and selective vegetarianism is not really relevant to his cause, and is, if I may say so, a punch below his belt. Accusing him of relativist tendencies because he vacillates on same-sex union is also rather lame(y).

I don’t remember reading anything by Andy Lamey in you magazine before, but if this is the kind of rationale and logic he brings to the table, I’d rather go somewhere else.

DEFENDING THE ROYALS –Andrew Coyne, Maclean`s Nov 23rd

The current Royal visit has been a non-event here. Canadian apathy and perceived difficulty of changing the constitution militate against a change in the status quo anytime soon. Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, except perhaps when they try to envision Charles and Camilla as their king and queen.

We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.

Andrew Coyne makes a fair argument about why we should have a Canadian Royal. It would accomplish two things: keeping our present true and tried political system, and having our own Royal family. His suggestion about offering the Crown to Prince Harry is a good one. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. We would have a domestic sovereign and could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.

What is Canada becoming? Is Canada's tolerance misplaced?

Mahfooz Kanwar, PHD, Is A Sociologist And An Instructor Emeritus at Mount Royal College
By Mahfooz Kanwar, For The Calgary Herald, March 30, 2009 -Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald


Canada's Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is getting flak from the usual
suspects, but he deserves praise instead.

Recently, Kenney pointed out that while at a meeting in Toronto, members of
Canada's Pakistani community called on him to make Punjabi one of Canada's
official languages. It makes me angry that such an idea would enter the minds
of my fellow and former countrymen, let alone express them to a Minister of
the Crown.

A few months ago, I was dismayed to learn that Erik Millett, the principal of
Belleisle School in Springfield, N.B., limited playing our national anthem
because the families of a couple of his students objected to it.

As a social scientist, I oppose this kind of political correctness, lack of
assimilation of new immigrants to mainstream Canada, hyphenated-Canadian
identity, and the lack of patriotism in our great nation.

Increasingly, Canadians feel restricted in doing things the Canadian way lest
we offend minorities. We cannot even say Merry Christmas without fear of
causing offence. It is amazing that 77 per cent of the Canadian majority are
scared of offending 23 per cent of minorities. We have become so timid that
the majority cannot assert its own freedom of expression. We cannot publicly
question certain foreign social customs, traditions and values that do not fit
into the Canadian ethos of equality. Rather than encouraging new immigrants to
adjust to Canada, we tolerate peculiar ways of doing things. We do not remind
them that they are in Canada, not in their original homelands.

In a multicultural society, it is the responsibility of minorities to adjust
to the majority. It does not mean that minorities have to totally amalgamate
with the majority. They can practice some of their cultural traditions within
their homes -- their backstage behavior. However, when outside of their homes,
their front stage behavior should resemble mainstream Canadian behavior.
Whoever comes to Canada must learn the limits of our system. We do not kill
our daughters or other female members of our families who refuse to wear
hijab, niqab or burka which are not mandated by the Qur'an anyway. We do not
kill our daughters if they date the "wrong" men. A 17-year-old Sikh girl
should not have been killed in British Columbia by her father because she was
caught dating a Caucasian man.

We do not practice the dowry system in Canada, and do not kill our brides
because they did not bring enough dowry. Millions of female fetuses are
aborted every year in India, and millions of female infants have been killed
by their parents in India and China. Thousands of brides in India are burned
to death in their kitchens because they did not bring enough dowry into a
marriage. Some 30,000 Sikhs living abroad took the dowries but abandoned their
brides in India in 2005. This is not accepted in Canada.

In some countries, thousands of women are murdered every year for family or
religious honour. We should not hide behind political correctness and we
should expose the cultural and religious background of these heinous crimes,
especially if it happens in Canada. We should also expose those who bring
their cultural baggage containing the social custom of female circumcision. I
was shocked when I learned about two cases of this barbaric custom practiced
in St. Catharines , Ont. A few years ago.

I have said it on radio and television, have written in my columns in the
Calgary Herald, and I have written in my latest book, Journey to Success, that
I do not agree with the hyphenated identity in Canada because it divides our
loyalties. My argument is that people are not forced to come to Canada and
they are not forced to stay here. Those who come here of their own volition
and stay here must be truly patriotic Canadians or go back.

I am a first-generation Canadian from Pakistan. I left Pakistan 45 years ago.
I cannot ignore Pakistan, because it is the homeland of my folks, but my first
loyalty should be and is to Canada. I am, therefore, a proud Canadian, no
longer a Pakistani-Canadian. I am a Canadian Muslim, not a Muslim Canadian.

I do not agree with those Canadians who engage in their fight against the
system in their original countries on Canadian soil. They should go back and
fight from within. For example, some of the Sikhs, Tamil Tigers, Armenians and
others have disturbed the peace in Canada because of their problems back home.
Recently, a low-level leader of MQM, the
Mafia of Pakistan, came to Canada as a refugee and started to organize public
rallies to collect funds for their cause in Pakistan. On July 18, 2007, the
Federal Court of Canada ruled that MQM is a terrorist group led by
London-based Altaf Hussain, their godfather. As a member in the coalition
government of Pakistan, this terrorist group is currently collaborating with
the Taliban in Pakistan. That refugee was deported back to Pakistan.
Similarly, I disagree with newcomers who bring their religious baggage here.
For example, Muslims are less than two per cent of the Canadian population,
yet in 2004 and 2005, a fraction of them, the fundamentalists, wanted to bring
Sharia law to Canada. If they really want to live under Shara, they should go
to the prison-like countries where Sharia is practiced.

I once supported multiculturalism in Canada because I believed it gave us a
sense of pluralism and diversity. However, I have observed and experienced
that official multiculturalism has encouraged convolution of the values that
make Canada the kind of place people want to immigrate to in the first place.

Here, we stand on guard for Canada, not for countries we came from. Like it or
not, take it or leave it, standing on guard only for Canada is our national
maxim. Remember, O Canada is our national anthem which must not be disregarded
by anybody, including the teacher in Springfield, N. B.

Mahfooz Kanwar, PHD, Is A Sociologist And An Instructor Emeritus at Mount Royal College.

DARTS AND LAURELS –Twenty Liberal and NDP MP’S -The Star, Nov 7th

I must take issue with your comment criticizing the MP’s who voted to abolish the (long) gun registry. The Star, and other media, has criticized Steven Harper for controlling his MP’s; here we have criticisms against Michael Ignatieff for not doing so. Which is it? “You cannot have your cake and also eat it”.

MP’s owe their allegiances to their constituents, first and foremost. MP’s are ultimately responsible to those who voted them in. Liberal MP’s from the Prairie Provinces would respond to their local voters who are mostly against registration of their long guns. Rural westerners are used to keeping rifles and shotguns around, and resent the bureaucratic intrusion on their way of life. MP’S do well to listen to the will of their home base. That’s what we call democracy.

“‘No regrets’ about days that bear his name, Rae says” –Star Nov.6th

Deep down, there must be some feeling of righteous glee in Bob Rae’s hearth. When as NDP Premier he faced a 12-billion deficit from the previous Liberal government in 1992, he tried to save public-sectors jobs by having them “share the work”; taking 12unpaid days off a year. The unions showed their appreciation by stabbing him in the back for the effort.

I remember being hospitalized for a few days during that time, and spent a night in a room just outside the nurse’s station. The nurses, in unison, were busy complaining about “Rae days”, and how terrible it was for the Premier to expect them to share the burden. If they would only have known, that after getting rid of the terrible Rae, they would face a new Premier, Conservative Mike Harris, who had no sympathy for their “plight”, and rather than sharing work, many of them would be sharing unemployment. Egoistic behaviour often leads to perdition.

Now they are facing “Dalton days” –same bird, different name. And a bigger deficit. Perhaps the sheltered public servants have learned their lesson and will discover the virtue of sharing this time –but don’t hold your breath.

Raitt accused of expense abuse –Star Nov 5th

There seems to be growing problems with public servants abusing their position and their expense accounts. Lisa Raitt has continued to be controversial in her function as a cabinet minister, showing carelessness with official documents (though she has not equaled Maxime Bernier there) and public utterances; yet, she is still holding on to her cabinet post, unlike poor Mr. Bernier. I guess Prime Minister Harper cannot afford to remove another minister.

I wonder if these instances of abuse of public trust is something that has always been the norm in public service, or is it that public morals, in general, has declined?

There might be another reason: abuse of public trust has always been the same, but the media – the Star, in particular – is more focused on such behaviour.

Royal visit or royal pain?

The current Royal visit is a non-event here. Canadian apathy and perceived difficulty of changing the constitution militate against a change in the status quo anytime soon. Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, except perhaps when they try to envision Charles and Camilla as their king and queen.

We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.

There is, however, a third way. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. Why not offer the crown to Prince Charles oldest son, William? We would have a domestic sovereign and we could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.

“The loonie requires urgent inaction” –Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s Nov. 9th issue.

“The loonie requires urgent inaction” –Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s Nov. 9th issue.

Andrew Coyne’s column is at once funny and serious. I am impressed with his polymathic ability to deal with complex and obtuse subjects, like the economy and monetary policy, as he does in your current issue. He manages to delineate the rather obscure subject of money in a simple and straight-forward way. Guess he comes by it honestly; his father was James Coyne, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1957 to 1961.The C$ was worth as much as $1.14 in 1961, due mainly to heavy foreign investment in Canada, mainly by the US. This brought pressure on the Government from exporters to do something (Coyne’s “Do Something lobby”). Printing money would debase the currency, but would also be highly inflationary, so the Government chose to fix the dollar. Fixing the dollar’s value is called a peg. This was done by John Diefenbaker`s Government in 1961, to the chagrin and eventually demise of Andrew Coyne`s father, Bank of Canada governor James Coyne, who resigned that year. The dollar was initially pegged at 92 cents US (and given the facetious appellation Diefenbuck), but in the seventies, the peg became too expensive for the government to maintain (i.e. The Bank of Canada had to buy US dollars or treasury notes to relieve the pressure on the dollar), and we went to a more flexible, floating exchange rate (a managed rate, or `dirty float`).

There are always two sides to every coyne (pardon the pun). With a strong dollar, importers gain, and consumers are happy. Exporters are sad. At least in the short run. But, as Mr. Coyne points out; importers can buy productive inputs at a lower price abroad, and their lower costs will trickle down (at least theoretically) through the economy, and both consumers and producers will gain –in the long run. The reverse is true for a weak Canadian dollar. It is the frequent fluctuation in value that causes most stress, because it does not give the economy enough time to adjust. It also leaves room for speculators to play their arbitrage game, and further destabilise the currency.

Andrew Coyne is correct in saying that maintaining a fixed rate would negate the need for a C$. It would also emasculate the Bank of Canada and destroy Canadian independent (or rather, semi-independent) monetary policy. The best the Bank can do is to ``lean against the wind``; to smooth the vagaries of economic life, and minimize the stress caused by a fluctuating dollar value.

FIXING THE REFUGEE MESS –STAR EDITORIAL OCT.28/09

You are totally correct in saying that the refugee system is broken and needs fixing. In fact, I have heard that tune now for decades, but it is only getting worse.

I have nothing against immigrants, I was one myself once, and I can understand our obligation to protect true refugees. The fact is, however, that a large portion of refuge claims are spurious claims from economic migrants, and only clogs up the system for real refugees.
I have personal experiences in this regard. In the eighties, one “refugee” family from Panama was working for me while awaiting a decision on their claim. They were “refugees” from Noriega’s regime, or so they claimed, except by then Noriega was a guest of the US government in a Florida jail. They had a subsidized town home and got economic support from the government, even a $ 100.00 cheque for each of their four children at Christmas. Another employee, a native Canadian, complained that she earned the same money, also had children, and lived in the same town home complex, but paid her own rent. The “refugee” claimant asked me to sign a form as guarantor for her mother to come and visit from Panama. I asked her why, if she was a “refugee”, her mother could come to visit. I don’t remember exactly the answer she gave me, but shortly thereafter she quit.

You, again, bring up the matter of Grise, the woman who, after having been hiding from the immigration authorities for years, got caught and sent home. In between, she managed to "go back to visit her sick grandmother," but after finally being deported; like Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf got her. I find it incredible, beyond belief, that Mexican drug gangs would target her out of “revenge”. Revenge for what? Was she involved in the Mexican drug trade?
Just asking.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just aint't so.
-Mark Twain.

“Thinking about the old Ignatieff” –Mark Steyn

I must be getting more conservative (small “c” please) in my senior years, because I find myself agreeing with Mark Steyn on several issues, and I support his battle with the “Human Rights Commission”. Perhaps it is from reading Tarek Fatah’s “Chasing a Mirage”, or it could be from reading Ezra Levant’s “Shakedown”, with his paean to Steyn’s struggles.

Whichever, I think Steyn has got it right regarding Iggy’s trials and tribulations in the Coliseum or Canadian politics. Ignatief is an erudite and thoughtful person; his writings are intelligent and profound. Not so his stammering political pronouncements. Pace his erudition, Michael Ignatieff is to political mud wrestling as a fish is to dry land –trashing around trying to find his breath.
In today’s political environment, politics and intelligence is an oxymoron, and the politicians bend and sway with the winds of the latest opinion surveys. Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying “the government you elect is the government you deserve”. No politician ever went wrong underestimating the average intelligence of the electorate. As your letter writer Mary Davies of Mississauga so accurately and succinctly put it “A good democracy requires both good citizens and good governments”. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have either.

Police dip into victims’ cash –Star, Sept 29th

Kudos to Star for digging up this information on the abuse by police force members of the taxpayer’s - funded Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund. Our police are well paid, with benefits that far surpass a majority of workers, many in equally hazardous jobs. To call a policeman injured on duty a “victim” of crime is beyond the pale and stretches credulity to the limit. The police are paid to face work-related risks, and to “serve and protect”. I didn’t think this included lining up at the public trough, while real victims are waiting in line behind them.
In some ways, I cannot blame them for taking what is there for the taking. It should be the task of government to write the law in such a way that this abuse will not happen.
This is not something the public would be aware of –perhaps not even most MP’s. Thus you are performing a much needed public service with your muckraking; whether it is the police or some other organization abusing public money and trust.

Ottawa lets Nortel slip from our grasp –Star Friday, September-18-09

I suspected the Conservatives were reluctant to get involved since Nortel had most of its work force outside the country, and thus did not represent many voters. Ericsson has in fact more workers domestically than does Nortel. The earlier investments the government (or we) has invested in the firm is history, or sunk costs as the accountants would say; and won’t be recovered by handing Nortel to RIM. In our global economy, corporate ownership is fluid and ephemeral. Canada has lost many of its old corporate names to foreigners – Stelco and Falconbridge just two of several.

Nortel has had several corporate name changes in its long history in Canada. It started out as part of Bell Telephone, incorporated as Northern Electric in 1895 and later became part of Western Electric and AT&T in the US. In the sixties, Bell Canada & Northern Electric was separated from US Bell and Western Electric by government decree, and in 1972 it became Northern Telecom getting involved in the electronic switching market as well as manufacturing telephones and combined research with Bell Canada.

Thus, Nortel‘s origin was what we used to call a “branch plant” of US industry, making the nationalist argument rather weak. It never was a “national treasure”, and in the recent past, their CEO’s have all been Americans. Thus, I find it hard to believe that Nortel’s sale to Ericsson would in any way be “injurious to national security; any more than was the sale of Stelco et.al.

There are always at least two sides to every story. There is Nortel’s, and then there is RIM’s.
In this case I think we should, to paraphrase an old metaphor; just “let the sleeping dog lie”.

“Different leader, same scenario for demise”. –Chantal Hebert, Sept 18th.

It’s indeed Dion redux. Ignatieff is an English-speaking version of the former. They are both brilliant academics in their fields, but it just proves, again, that intellect and education alone will not a politician make; no matter how sincere and dedicated they are. You need bravura as well as brains, and in our age of instant TV news clips and the YouTube, you need a certain amount of élan and verve; eloquence and joviality. They had just such a candidate in Bob Rae, but they chose the bland and jejune over vivacity and eloquence. The Liberals ought to have learned that lesson with Dion, but no, they went after another academic.


As they say in baseball: three strikes and you’re out!” They’d better hope that Harper self-destruct, because I don’t think that Ignatieff is up to the task.

SOMETHING ROTTEN IN QUEENS PARK

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TheStar.com Opinion Where did civil service ethics go?


Sep 03, 2009 04:30 AM
Something rotten at Queen's Park,
Editorial, Sept. 1

Yes, indeed, it stinks. It does not seem to matter which party is in charge, civil servants will find a way to feed at the public trough. Perhaps the time has come to appoint a special auditor for such government agencies – an expert in forensic accounting.
It's all so disheartening. Yet, there is a silver lining: we live in a country where even top civil servants and politicians are subject to scrutiny by a free press and opposition parties. That gives us some succour.

Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga