Officially Sanctioned Extortion

Canadians feel complacent that our security is assured, that illicit attempts to force any of us to part with our hard-earned cash will bring the law to our side, protectively. We live in a free and fair society, one where each of us is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees us equal treatment under the law. Providing us the choice of religion, ideology, gender orientation.

Our right to free speech and free association is guaranteed under the Charter. To a certain point.

Unless any of us utter hurtful slander geared to cause pain and suffering and danger to others. And then the law steps in, for there are anti-hate laws that protect society. Of course if someone is not being utterly hateful and dangerous to your well-being, but being provocative and causes you distress you can get your own back by claiming hurt feelings. Take those hurt feelings to a human rights tribunal and you're away to the races.

If there is a criticism that impacts on you personally, if someone who offers specialized services to the public, but declines to provide those services to you, become affronted; it is your due. For the human rights tribunals are there to look to your peace of mind. You can trample on someone else's peace and security and values by imposing your own on them, and that's a lesson learned, isn't it?

And psst! it won't cost you a red dime. Designed and paid for on taxpayer funding. And through the process of impressing on the tribunal just how hurt your feelings are and how unfair it is that a religious group refuses to honour your orientation because it offends their value system, take the opportunity to give them a come-uppance, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.

In the process you can bleed them of their assets as compensation for hurt feelings.

Cry racism, or homophobia or any other manner of phobia to impress the human rights tribunals and presto! Your case is made for you. Because that's what their raison d'etre is, after all; to defend those who are bleating and to offend those who claim innocence. There is no neutrality, no balancing of opposite and apposite standards and opinions, there is your tragic story that must be pursued to your satisfaction.

Make your story compelling enough, describe your grief over the insult, the assault on your human dignity and watch the tribunal excoriate the offender, and see them empty their pockets to satisfy the fine that will go directly into yours. These are shakedown tribunals under a human rights guise. The complaint whatever the issue is the issue.

The outcome is a settlement agreed upon by a harassed and discombobulated individual or group who never in their wildest nightmares imagined themselves as human rights defilers.

Proportional Representation?

Some years back during a federal election Canadian voters took part in a referendum. To signify how they felt about a new potential reform for the Canadian electoral system. It wasn't quite proportional representation, but a modified version of it. And voters turned it down. That hasn't stopped the proponents of proportional representation, however. And isn't it an odd thing that those who urge that such a change occur mostly represent political parties that have never been voted into power by Canada's first-past-the-post system.

Now those who protest our original and only electoral system insist that the majority the Conservative government under Stephen Harper were finally granted by the electorate represents a "false majority". On the basis that under 40% of the electorate voted for the Conservatives - that percentage rises to 48% if we exclude Quebec, and Quebec deliberately excluded itself as it is wont to do when its nose is out of joint; which is a perpetual state.

The protesting groups representing the NDP and the Green parties received far less of the popular vote, needless to say. But the principle that they espouse, that proportional representation would be a fairer recognition of how Canadians tend to vote is one that will not be laid to rest.

It does result, in countries which use that electoral system, in fractionalized governments which, to maintain their integrity must shuffle for support and alliances resulting in a process approximating co-operation, but not always to the best advantage of the country necessarily. The Green party's leader, Elizabeth May, portrays herself and her party as seeking PR from principle.

She won her party's first Parliamentary seat giving her party and herself cause for great celebration. But the Green party, despite fielding 300 candidates won just one seat, after three elections in which they won none. Because the party garnered 7% of the popular vote, a million dollars was doled out in vote subsidies to enable the party to operate and run an election campaign.

That campaign focused on one single seat, chosen because in all of Canada it seemed the most likely to submit to the blandishments of a party focused on the environment. Elizabeth May's previous riding election attempts failed; her reputation and her hubris simply weren't enough to sway voters there to her vision of a new Canada.

How much of a success was her single Parliamentarian win, when the other 299 candidates all failed?

And when, this time around, the Green party garnered a mere 4% of the popular vote? "My concern is less about the number of seats the Greens would have in Parliament, but that the first-past-the-post system has allowed this false Conservative majority when only 39.6% of voters voted for them." There's a vast difference between 4% and 39.6% is there not? Yet she professes unconcern about the lack of seats achieved by the Greens.

The spearhead group, Fair Vote Canada, is now focusing on moving the dispirited, failed Liberals around to their way of thinking, "...because under a proportional system they would have twice the number of seats they have now." Which still would not have given them the lead they anticipated, raising them toward governing status.

Elizabeth May's bravado and sense of entitlement is somewhat galling and insulting to the great numbers of Canadians who voted during this election and feel satisfied that their vote counted as intended. Her contention, "I realize that the term false majority isn't familiar to most Canadians, but the reality is, we will be governed under one for the next four years", makes one groan at the thought this poseur will now sit in Parliament.

The 41st Parliament under Prime Minister Stephen Harper cannot rescind the tax-paid vote subsidy fast enough for many of us. It falsely and insultingly enabled the Bloc Quebecois and the Green parties to assume an importance neither logically and practically were entitled to.

UWO Academic Funding

"[We want] to express our alarm over the disclosure that two Islamist organizations - the Muslim Association of Canada and the [Virginia-based] International Institute of Islamic thought - will provide most of the $2-million in funding for a new Chair in Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Theology at Huron University College. While we commend the College for undertaking to 'make a substantive contribution to understanding of Islamic thought and Muslim identity in pluralistic societies' through the establishment of this Chair, we think it is extremely ill-advised of the College to accept funding from any organization implicated in violent jihad.

"We think that it is reckless for Huron University College to accept up to $1-million in funding from a tainted organization like the IIIT. Would the College have accepted funding from the IRA for a chair in Irish studies? We think not." Letter sent by 26 faculty alumni and friends of the University of Western Ontario to Trish Fulton, interim principal at Huron University College, affiliate of University of Western Ontario.

With good reason. There are precedents, of course. Saudi Arabia used a good whack of its oil revenues to establish Wahhabist madrassas in countries around the world, from Afghanistan to Canada and points in between. In those madrassas, mullahs taught their students the fundamentals of Islam, encouraging the obligation of jihad and martyrdom for the cause. It was institutions like those that inspired today's terror groups, including al-Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood has its tentacles all around the world, including cells in Canada. It portrays itself as a respectable, law-abiding group whose only purpose and function is furthering the honourable cause of restoring Islam to its former glory. Its Egyptian founder, Hassan al-Banna, wanted to promote Islamic piety; he rejected the influence of the secular West in the Middle East, advocating a return to Islam.

That was in 1928. His ideas motivated many devoted Islamists to broaden his vision, and pick up on his urging of Muslims to undertake holy war as a defensive strategy to an offensive one. The Brotherhood excelled at assassinations of political figures. It had a huge influence on Yasser Arafat, spawned Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and had great influence with al-Qaeda leaders.

The Muslim Association of Canada links itself to the Muslim Brotherhood. On its website: "MAC adopts and strives to implement Islam ... as understood in its contemporary context by the late Imam, Hassan Albanna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood." The Brotherhood, which aims to restore Islamic laws and values in the face of growing Western influence.
Although the Muslim Brotherhood has influenced a generation of violent, radical groups, MAC spokesman Yaser Haddara told the news conference (on instituting Sharia law in Ontario) without blinking an eye, that the group's core values are consistent with Canadian values. MAC states on its website that "We do have a firm belief that our philosophy and vision are superior to others and we strive to ensure that they are actualized." How MAC will "actualize" the Muslim Brotherhood "philosophy" in Canada is not elaborated." Tarek Fatah - Chasing a Mirage; the Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State

The answer to that question posed by Tarek Fatah seems to be held within this initiative to fund a Chair in Islamic Studies at the University of Western Ontario, in London, Ontario.

Hassan Al-Banna envisioned Middle East Muslim states re-affirming their Islamist fundamentals. Eschewing the growing trend toward Westernizing their outlooks and priorities, abandoning their Islamic bona fides. His current-day followers advocate for a slow and steady infiltration into Western society with a view to substituting Western values and thought with those of Islam.

A 1991 memorandum by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council proposed that Muslim settlement in Canada and the United States be considered a "Civilization-Jihadist Process". "The MB must understand that their work in America is kind of a grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house."

We are sleep-walking helpfully to the fulfillment of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda.

Jack On The Dole

NDP Leader Jack Layton, accompanied by his wife, Trinity-Spadina MP Olivia Chow, arrives at the East End Children's Centre during a campaign stop in Toronto on Sept. 17, 2008.ANDREW VAUGHAN/The Canadian Press

Smilin' Jack is beside himself with delight. Throw in some glee; who would've thunk it?

Himself, that's who. Because if there's something Jack Layton is well endowed with, it's a vigorous sense of self-entitlement. We just thought that Michael Ignatieff was stuffed full of himself, in the belief that he would make an excellent prime minister. Or that Stephen Harper felt entitled after his minority-government apprenticeship to an opportunity at full-steam-ahead majority status.

Come-from-behind Jack knows of a certainty that it was time his brilliance as a politician was appreciated. And the public appears prepared to support him in that belief. Will wonders ever cease? And will Canadians finally - actually, yet again - get the government they're deserving of? Which is to say, are there really that many delusional voters dazzled by the fancy hobble-work of Jack-the-survivor to vote him into 24 Sussex Drive?

Jack and his estimable wife are accustomed to tax-subsidized digs. They felt equally entitled to life-support in Toronto in subsidized rent-scaled-to-income living arrangements. Never for one moment considering how peculiar it might look for two well-remunerated politicians taking away housing from those who really do need it; they just felt kind of comfortable there, anything wrong with that?

Well, yes. There is, a whole lot wrong with it. Something analogous to being the high-spending duo in Parliament out of the entire Member-of-Parliament contingent. A rather extravagant $1.6-M total expenditure annually for office expenses, travel and what-not, courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. When asked to justify that huge sum in an interview with a nosy reporter, Olivia Chow simply said "it isn't illegal".

It should be. But there's an honour system in Parliament. We figure that those whom we elect to public office have a care about how they spend-and-claim taxpayer-funded largess. After all, our lawmakers are important to the political health and social well-being of this country. If we cannot trust them to be sensible and prudent with the country's welfare uppermost in mind, then who can we trust?

Well, Jack of course. He has great plans for this country. He and the unions that support him want better bargains for union workers. They're not sufficiently entitled. An already-bleeding industry sector better get ready to bleed more jobs as manufacturers decide to re-settle offshore. Ditto for foreign investment, when Jack decides to raise corporate taxes. Employment heading south....

As for viable candidates, Jack promises more women in his caucus and Cabinet than any other party. Olivia Chow for Treasury Board by way of Finance. And those NDP female candidates who absented themselves in Las Vegas and France and just elsewhere-who-knows-where, to prove their commitment to the party and the country, will be slipped into office by voters suddenly enamoured with the NDP.

And then there's Quebec, and its special status; very special under Prime Minister Jack Layton. Feel like extending Bill 101? Right on. Restrict English, sounds like a sound business choice. And no, there will be no Supreme Court judges appointed under his rule who are not efficiently bilingual. Nope, no English-language studies for Quebecers who think they may slip through the barriers. As for Quebec independence, why not; a simple majority will do; rescind the Clarity Act.

Who needs the Bloc when they've got Jack Layton and the NDP in the PMO? Got those moving vans busy at 24 Sussex yet?

Jack's Boundless Energy

Like the frustrated bridesmaid determined to finally become a bride, after having worked so hard to attain bridesmaid status following a very long period when she was merely a guest, here is Jack Layton bringing the New Democratic Party into the home stretch of either the official opposition or, unbelievably, the new government of Canada. He's sounding breezily confident of late, although perhaps slightly more guarded in his statements to the press since suddenly what he commits to may come back to bite him.

They will certainly - all of his promises, should he ever attain power, either through himself attaining a minority government, or finagling one by finessing a coalition-that-isn't-a-coalition with himself at the helm - come back to bite the voting public. Who may themselves take to biting their fingernails in frustration at the sudden flight of foreign investment, the moans of corporations stung with higher business taxes, and the agony of resulting higher unemployment figures, as fall-out leading to the economy staggering back into enfeebled recession.

Let alone all the expensive new commitments to the Province of Quebec which will call in all of its suddenly-discovered needs which Jack expansively guaranteed his government would be only too privileged to pay for, to keep Quebec happy. Because Jack believes in asymmetrical federalism, in the unique nationalism of Quebec, in the entitlements of Quebec to be its unqualified deserving self with little-to-no-interference from the federal government.

There are, after all, in the grandly-released, and little-focused-on election platform 205 policy promises as a starter as 'first steps' recognizing the needs of Canadian families in the process putting Canada on the highway to a soaring debt that will make the current one look attractive by comparison. A lovely new green plan will be unveiled to finally do justice to all the deserving environmental programs that have been ignored.

A new publication just released has some nifty little details the public can cue into for future prospects in that department. Little tidbits like the conclusion that Spain's efforts to be green resulted in "2.2 jobs (destroyed) for every job created", coming to us courtesy of Kenneth Green and Ben Eisen, writing for the Frontier Centre, explaining "while the capital needed for one green job in Italy could create five new jobs in the general economy". And that researchers at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos released data that the cost of each "green job" in 2009 Spain costed in at $791,597.

Green is a lovely colour, but it's an excessively expensive one to paint the economy with. Spanish researcher Gabriel Calzada Alvarez and company discovered that each "green" megawatt of energy installed "destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy". Leading Spain finally to the conclusion that its bold new environmental venture into sustainable renewable energy alternatives were simply economically unsustainable.

In Italy and Germany, as in Spain, rampant corruption spread through the exciting new green corporate world of sustainable energy. Everyone eager to take advantage of this splendid new direction in business opportunities. "In Italy, however, rather than having numerous individuals defrauding the government, the Mafia is involved", while in Germany utilities are required by law to purchase solar energy at 59 cents per kWh, whereas conventional sources range from 20 cents to 3 cents.

But the thing is, no one is interested in boringly irrelevant details. The interest lies in the attractiveness of 'doing the right thing' since, after all, there is an environmental crisis at hand; the world is using up non-renewable energy sources at an astounding rate, and in the process adding further to the degradation of the environment. Add to that the fact that as the world's population rises and more people are demanding the privileges seen in the industrialized wealthy world, depletion becomes more assured.

There will certainly have to be some manner of functional address to be realized to this very real problem, simply not necessarily one reflective of proven failures, administered by rookie governments with no past experience in all the areas that the NDP is so eager to dip its fingers into as a purely social-welfare dedication to solving difficult problems. Layton has promised $20-billion for new green initiatives to be paid for by a cap-and-trade system yet to be devised.

But that amount represents only a fraction of the entire projected new spending commitments which come in at about $69-billion, in an economy which is still struggling to fully compensate for the downturn before full confidence can be assumed, and with it new jobs. Higher taxes can be assured with a newly-installed NDP government, but taxes alone won't be sufficient to pay for all the promises, let alone address the deficit and debt.

Canada will become more indebted, over and above the already burdensome amount that resulted from addressing the emergency of the downturn. And this is what Canadians are getting set to vote for? Reason appears to have floated into the upper stratosphere, beyond recall, as people are mesmerized by the picture of a courageous, scrappy populist, who faced down cancer surgery followed by a hip fracture, and still hobbles about tirelessly, and pugnaciously out there, capturing admiration.

Should the impossible come to fruition, we will begin to live in interesting times.

Canada's 21st Century Gold Rush

Well, it's a head-scratcher all right. The 'astonishing' surge of the NDP and the huge popularity of its leader, Jack Layton. Who might have thought this could occur? A former Toronto city councillor and would-be mayor who thought he would challenge for the leadership of the NDP, and here he is, a veteran of four election campaigns, suddenly thrust into the lime-light of beloved-first of voters' preference.

Are those voters thinking 'Prime Minister Jack Layton'? If so they're fairly suggestible, taking up from Jack Layton himself, who has enthused his party sufficiently that they too declare him the future prime minister of Canada, which is how he himself has been proudly proclaiming his intent. Will it come even remotely close to resembling the final results? How likely is that? Are Canadians listening to themselves, let alone the promises issuing from his smiling lips?

Even if this country were as wealthy commensurately as the oil sheikdoms, we would go broke paying for all the hefty and impractical social benefits Jack Layton is promising to rain down on us on May 3rd, when he bashfully makes his plans to move into 24 Sussex Drive. His green-energy agenda should make for very good relations with Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty, but theirs is fated to be a short-lived federal-provincial love-in, since Mr. McGuinty appears on his way out of the premiership.

Prime Minister Layton will open the Constitution and re-work it here and there to ensure it presents as compatible with Quebec's aspirations. He is prepared to give Quebec all that it wishes for, and to surprise it for having ushered him into the prime ministership, by giving it even more power, prestige and autonomy by moving Parliament to Quebec City and himself governing the country from that aerie.

Children nationwide will be cared for in government-sponsored-and-funded daycare. Their parents will be freed up to spend their time at unionized jobs that will successfully sue for greater and more generous perquisites, inclusive of a retirement plan that will release them from the stultifying effects of working for a living by the time they reach fifty years of age. There will be hugely-compensated employment for everyone. And for those who simply do not feel like demeaning themselves by applying themselves to working for a living wage, welfare will step in and provide, handsomely.

Health care will no longer present as a problem with long waiting times for surgeries and emergency room hold-ups, for the quality of Canada's universality of medicare will suddenly erupt in a bonanza of perfection paid for by ever-increasing transfers of funds from federal coffers, keeping the Royal Mint ever so busy minting gold coins everyone will clamour for, the precious metal dredged up from the Ottawa River where it has lain unclaimed by anyone for centuries. Canada's pharmaceutical generics will develop a not-for-profit conscience and offer almost-free drugs to those in need.

Finally, Canadians will be able to relax and enjoy life; no stresses, no messes. Thank you, Jack Layton.

Canadian Leadership Material

The Canadian electorate is facing up to its choices. At least it might seem that way, given the latest poll revelations. But then nothing is ever assured, and as the pundits say, things could turn on a dime. Predicting the nation's mood sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. With a full week left yet to voting day there's ample time for someone to impress and someone else to fail to.

It seems to the reasonable mind that a Conservative visible-minority candidate in British Columbia may not be too bright, too aware, less than capable when neither she nor her campaign advisers were quick enough to pick up a familiar-sounding name as trouble. Ignorance can be used as an excuse that Wai Young attended a public meeting in the presence of, and to be endorsed by Ripudaman Singh Malik acquitted of guilt in the Air India bombing.

But ignorance in general nor lack of diligence in whom one permits to endorse a candidature is not a very laudable quality in a political candidate. Nor does it reflect well on another partisan crowd attending a meeting with Stephen Harper, that protected him from responding to a reporter's question about the event.

On the other hand, it defies reason that a Conservative candidate, much less the party itself would court the support of a man whom a bungled RCMP investigation enabled a situation to evolve that allowed this Sikh-Canadian involved in the militant free-Khalistan movement to escape justice for his part in a home-grown terrorist attack. The answer is clear; neither would.

Then there's the campaign of Jack Layton's New Democratic Party, with the leader himself commiserating with Quebec over the plight of: "Too many families can't make ends meet, too many seniors are living in poverty - it's not right"; promising to fight for the interests of Quebecers. How are their interests any different than that of all Canadians?

Well, Quebec with its pride in clean-energy hydro thanks to the massive James Bay hydroelectric project is very receptive toward promises of further investment in clean-energy technologies. And Quebec's aging, crumbling infrastructure requiring the replacement of bridges is another item dear to the minds of the province's voters, and Jack Layton is responding.

"We offer to Quebecers the same thing we offer to Canadians, we will look after the issues of health care with your families. We will focus on job creation. we will work hard to provide economic security for seniors and we will try to take steps to make their lives a little more affordable", he promised.

Wait a minute: Jack Layton is differentiating Quebecers from Canadians? Amazing. Isn't it?

And there's Michael Ignatieff campaigning for the Liberal Party to be restored to its natural governing status. "If any of you are tempted to vote for the other party, take a look at the costing table at the back of the NDP program. They got $30 billion of spending. ...Don't go there folks. This is not wise."

Time out for campaigning against the Conservatives, focus needed on the NDP because they're splitting the vote. The gullible public is expected to handily forget all the costly promises being bandied about by the Liberals during this election campaign?

"We could have NDP amateur hour or we can have competent responsible government", Mr. Ignatieff warns his followers and the voting public at large. Liberals may swallow that message, but the uncommitted may gawp at the statements. Jack Layton cut his baby teeth on politics; he comes from a political family, he was deeply involved in Toronto municipal politics, and he has thus far had experience in running in three elections.

Michael Ignatieff returned to Canada from his sojourns abroad to be the saviour of the Liberal Party accustomed to governing as though they were the only party worth mentioning in the country. When, under the Liberals, regions that supported them were lavished with pork-barrelling, and when social programs Canadians depended on, got seriously cut back.

Yet Michael Ignatieff, who is a prime example of a democratic deficit in the very manner in which he was elevated to office can claim without blushing "People have a long memory here... They know that a Liberal government can govern." Sure, people have a long memory; long enough to recall the greed and corruption under the Liberals and the diminishment of social programs.

His stated strategy for the remainder of the campaign until voting day; "hope, hope, hope" and "optimism" is just what Canadians appear to have concluded, in very fact.

Paying Down The Debt

We're on notice. No FaceBook postings, no Twitter updates of election results, come May 2. Seriously, better not. Elections Canada has warned us. Yes, there is a law, a hoary old one predating the birth of most people living in Canada today. And it's still valid, never having been reconsidered in light of trends and current electronic social networks and news sites.

The Internet has altered the world we live in in far more ways than could ever have been imagined a decade ago. It inspires people, through all the opportunities available to connect, to communicate, to trade information and hasten events, to encourage inclusion. Why it has been seen to be responsible for political-social revolutions turning on a dime.

No newspapers, radio stations, television networks, organized institutional news media may, under Canada's election law transmit electoral results across time zones. When the last of Canada's ballots have been cast in British Columbia, then and only then may radio and television and print media publish electoral results.

Well, that's all right; they can be regulated and they all recognize the law and abide by it. But individuals posting updates on their Twitter or FaceBook accounts? There aren't enough agents of the law to prosecute, let alone persecute people who flout this antiquated and ridiculous law.

Imagine, fining individuals $25,000 a pop for their illegal indiscretion. Government would be able to pay down the debt in short order.

Rise Up!

Sounding like a passionate, mind-addled Evangelist, Michael Ignatieff chanted to an attentive crowd during an election stop, a fusillade of Obama-like inspiration: "Rise Up!, Rise Up!, Rise Up!" One suspects that in a self-induced trance of hubristic entitlement he felt not the least bit embarrassed. There were some onlookers to the event who must have doubted his sanity.

A temporary unhinging of the mind, that's all. He was restored to his usual self-assured, folksy attitude, no longer resembling an outright imbecile, in short order. Must have been something he had for lunch, or a nightmare he experienced the night before that horrified him with a technicolour vision of a majority government for the Conservatives.

Or, quite simply, a recall of his predecessor, the estimable Stephane Dion, declaring at the 2006 Liberal party convention: "We must get back to power as soon as possible." Possibly, Michael Ignatieff has been haunted by those words ever after. Particularly as, having assisted in ushering Mr. Dion off the stage, and manoeuvring himself into position, "as soon as possible" seems to have eluded him.

And then, there's that statement by M. Ignatieff's nemesis, Stephen Harper who said: "We're in the election to win, and all I can say is serving my party and serving Canadians in my capacity as leader and prime minister is a great honour, it will always be a great honour". Precisely, it is that, and more, and S. Harper is clearly undeserving of that great honour.

It is one that Michael Ignatieff, an aristocrat born, yearns to savour. And that detestable S. Harper stands stolidly in his way. What could conceivably be more intolerable. He has presented the electorate with his plan, put voters on notice.

"What I'm prepared to do is talk to Mr. Layton or Mr. Duceppe or even Mr. Harper and say: 'Look, we've got an issue here. How do we solve it? Here's the plan I want to put before Parliament, this is the budget I would bring in, and then we take it from there'". Clear enough; the issue that is. Being Mr. Ignatieff's insatiable thirst for power. Take it from there.

The proceedings of a democratic election will not faze him. The presentation of another minority government a heaven-sent opportunity to thumb his entitled nose at the electorate's choice. Haven't the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc already pledged to reject another Conservative budget? Ergo, the House has no confidence in the minority government.

Or, as Mr. Harper says: "So there will either be a Conservative majority or it will be a majority cobbled together between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois." "It's very, very clear", said Bob Rae, "You form a government because you have the most seats, and if you win the confidence of the House of Commons ... you continue in government.

"And when you lose confidence, you lose." Rise Up!

Denials Notwithstanding

Well, at least now it's out there, in the open. A frank admission, finally, by the leader of the Liberal Party expressing his sincere anxiety not to allow an opportunity to pass, grasping fortune if it wags its beckoning little finger at him. Should, then, the Conservatives be voted into yet another minority government, the stage will have been set for another try at wrenching government administration from the Conservatives to the Liberals.

Without going back to the polls. That's the thing of it. Voters do not view the Liberal party and its current leader as their choice to lead the country. They have expressed their opinion fairly loud and clearly in the past three elections. Not that loudly, admittedly, as to be without equivocation, since a majority continues to elude the Conservatives. But, fourth time around it may not.

Yet Mr. Ignatieff has no hesitation now in spelling out a winning strategy for himself.

He cannot possibly win any other way. Since all polls indicate the relative positions of the Conservatives in public opinion vis-a-vis the Liberals, unmistakably favouring the Conservatives. When is a win not a win? When the loser decrees it to be a loss; not for himself, for the winning party.

He will take it upon himself to toss the Canadian voters' preference into the trash heap of rejection and offer up a prize instead - himself.

We've seen this little playbook before. When the majority of Canadians politely responded by saying, "thanks, but no thanks". Guess Mr. Ignatieff's head is so stuffed with his ambition that it went right by him, failed entirely to register. On the other hand, there are some people so beset by their ambition that they feel they cannot possibly be wrong; just a little arm-twisting here and there to satisfy the Democratic ideal.

If the Tories think they can ascend once again to the seat of governance, they've got another think coming, he huffs righteously. The voters may place them in that position, but the House of Commons is required to validate that position, and he will see to it that this does not happen. With a little help from his friends. Two can sing that ditty.

No coalition, though. Trust him. Do not - repeat - do not listen to the twisted warning issuing from Stephen Harper's lips. The man cannot be trusted.

The bloody nerve, claiming that the Liberals' goal is to form a coalition government. No need, no need at all. Support, that's all. Mr. Ignatieff will not be indebted to the NDP, let alone the Bloc; perish the thought on that last tag, for he loves Canada, a united, unified country.

"We owe it to the people to be absolutely clear and to make it clear afterwards so when the people make up their mind they know what the route here is", he stated, explaining his "two-stage" process of obtaining what a free and fair democratic vote could not give him.

After all, he became leader of the Liberals bypassing a democratic vote, so why not Prime Minister?

That's the way his system works.

Extortion And Separation

It is nothing short of infuriating that a Canadian province has a population that maintains a provincial party whose intention it is to lead the province out of the federation, and that it votes into power another, supporting party dedicated to the same intolerable mission. What makes this such a damnable situation is that both the provincial and the federally-designated parties squeeze and demand out of Canadian taxpayers one concession after another and the funding to go with them.

Their immense sense of entitlement to match their sense of aggrievement that they are an island of French-speaking, French-cultured first-founders whose specialness is never adequately recognized is a source of constant friction between the majority English-speaking population of the country and the hubristic French-speakers. The Province of Quebec within the federation of the provinces that make up Canada is, in fact, a self-selected apartheid state.

They consider themselves nationalists, aspiring to achieve nationhood for their province. And they scorn those francophones in the province who consider themselves federalists, content to have their province remain within Confederation. And while Quebecois in the majority do seem to feel they would prefer to remain within Canada, they have not been averse to playing Devil's advocate.

They support the Bloc Quebecois to send it as an irritant to sit in the House of Commons, much like an oyster hosts a grain of sand that irritates the oyster compelling it to cover the speck of sand with a material that eventually turns into a precious pearl. For Quebecers that pearl is extravagant transfer payments and other monetary considerations in reflection of Quebec's expertness in turning the screw of ransom.

The rest of Canada is so anxious to retain Quebec within the federation, so eager to please Quebec, that it agrees to permit itself to be held to ransom, and this state of affairs has continued over the years to the point where finally many in the rest of Canada are beginning to question the utility and the futility of it all. Why bother? They want to leave; leave and be done with it.

The verbal atrocities emanating from the just-concluded Parti Quebecois conference that resulted in a resounding re-affirmation of its leader Pauline Marois with a 93.1% vote of confidence, is reflexively gagging. Ms. Marois stating that Ottawa would be judged harshly by resisting Quebec's demands for more power. By whom? The ever-resourcefully-blackmailing Bloc?

There was a defeated proposal to outlaw English on commercial signs. The time is not yet ripe for that initiative; it is yet to come. Bill 101 will receive a proposal to incorporate an additional restriction disallowing francophones and the children of immigrants to choose to attend English-language colleges. All in the name of cementing into law the primacy of the French language.

Delegates to the conference voted to ensure French is "the priority language" in all provincial courts and tribunals in Quebec, inclusive of those under federal jurisdiction. And the language police will be further instructed to become more diligently vigilant and more intrusive and more offensively aggressive.

Under consideration is the investigation of whether anglophone hospitals and municipalities serve sufficient numbers of anglophones to justify continued English-language operation.

"It is another way to show how sovereignty is necessary for our identity, for our language and even for the development of our cultural economic and social programs", Ms. Marois exulted. For none is as exceptional as francophones. In the interests of solidifying its position Quebec is prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter's protection of rights and freedoms.

In other words, leaving anglophones, allophones and immigrants with few choices but to accept the mandated status quo. Quebec is close to a provincial election. The currently-ruling Liberal party is at an extremely low popularity level. Cue the Parti Quebecois.

Which is prepared, once it is re-installed in power, to insist from the federal government on new powers and control respecting language, environment, culture, economic and regional development, and immigration budgets. There is never enough funding for Quebec, which prides itself on its social programs paid for courtesy of the rest of Canada.

And the once very-catholic Roman Catholic Church-dominated province moves ever closer to complete social secularity, for a new Parti Quebecois government will be prepared to put religious orthodoxy in its public place, barring public servants from wearing conspicuous religious symbols.

And the Bloc, its partner in secession?

"More united than ever. We have only one task to accomplish: elect the maximum number of sovereigntists in Ottawa and then we go to the next phase. Electing a PQ government. A strong Bloc in Ottawa. A PQ in power in Quebec. And everything becomes possible." Gilles Duceppe

The unconscionable part of all of this is that the Canadian taxpayer across this great country is paying for the PQ and the Bloc to perform their nasty little dance of extortion and separation.

Suing for Statehood, Suing for Peace

The Palestinian Authority has pronounced itself ready for statehood. The United Nations has congratulated the Palestinian Authority for its work in resulting in producing nascent government departments, the administrative instruments of government required for the functioning of an independent state. Infrastructure development has been produced that will assist a new Palestinian State to govern well.

And there are 100 UN member-states prepared to support the PA's unilateral push for sovereign statehood.

Of these 100 state governments allied with the United Nations in the General Assembly and the United Nations administration itself, where are the questions looking for answers related to the PA's intentions toward its neighbour? Not much in the way of good will when the Palestinian Authority abrogates the necessary first step to living adjacent an established neighbour before seeking statehood.

That first step being a commitment to living in peace with Israel, the neighbour that the Palestinians have been attempting to dislodge from the geography since 1948.

Israel remains adamant that first things must be settled first, a not-unreasonable assumption that this would be in the best interests of both solitudes and by extension the entire Middle East. Agree on a peace settlement and in the process clean up the outstanding issues that have been a prickly matter of contention between both Israel and the Palestinians.

But to do so would be to clearly acknowledge that the Jewish State has a right to exist as a Jewish State. And that by extension the Palestinians agree to accept their portion of the geography, inside borders agreeable and practically useful to each.

The international community sees a Palestinian Authority claiming it has matured politically and socially and is prepared to take its place as a nation within a community of nations.

This is also the administration that continues to honour suicide bombers as 'martyrs'. In the process recruiting others to emulate the passionate and violent rejection of Israel's survival as a state. As a good neighbour the PA has chosen to use Passover as a jumping board to honour the PA terrorist responsible for the 2002 "Passover Massacre" in which 30 Israelis died.

The family of Abbas Al-Sayed who masterminded the deadly attack was officially awarded a "festive plaque, in celebration of the anniversary of the massacre". The bomber, Abdel-Basset Odeh detonated a bomb contained in a suitcase, killing outright 30 elderly civilians celebrating Passover, and maiming dozens more at the Park Hotel in Netanya.

Of more recent vintage was the attack on the Fogel family of five, one an infant, by two young men arrested later by Israeli Security. Amjad Awad, 19, and Hakim Awad, 18, both residents of the Arab village of Awarta, next to the Jewish community of Itamar, where the slaughter took place, were raised in families that had dedicated themselves to martyrdom.

They were proud of what they had accomplished, telling their interlocutors that had they known that two other children of the Fogel family were asleep in their rooms they would have killed them as well. They will be tried of the crimes of which they are accused in an Israeli court of law.

But not if Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has anything to say about it. For the Palestinian Authority and its Chairman now call upon Israel to release Palestinian prisoners as yet another condition of sitting down to discuss peace options. That these Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israeli jails are terrorists and murderers is not lost on the PA who consider them honourable martyrs.

This then, is the partner for peace that Israel is matched against. And to whom the international community and the United Nations is prepared to grant statehood on the basis of their having achieved the basic determinants for responsible governance. Absent the intention to live in peace with their neighbour.

Absent the determination to instruct their people otherwise than to continue to conduct violent raids against their neighbour. Reflecting, in fact, the issue seen but not recognized when Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated, speaking at the United Nations, that Israel should be wiped from the map of the Middle East.

This is the responsible governing entity prepared to enter statehood, one that insists upon the release of all Palestinians in Israeli jails, encouraging its public to hold protests across the West Bank for the release of prisoners in Israeli jails. They speak not of Israel, but of the "1948 territories".

The PA's "Minister of Prisoner Affairs, Issa Qarage who has praised terrorists in his official capacity, was out encouraging people to mount their protests, stating "Struggle is the story of the Palestinian people". "Struggle" being code for conducting violent attacks against the "oppressor"; Israel.

In the PA's school system an hour was dedicated to the indoctrination of students that all Palestinian Authority prisoners, regardless of their crimes, irrespective of the lawful judgements brought against them, must be released. In the West Bank mosques and churches added their encouragement calling for the release of prisoners in speeches, and clanging bells in solidarity.

This is Israel's partner for peace; not eschewing violence and entreating its citizens to do likewise, but celebrating violence; encouraging and honouring it. And this is the Palestinian Authority that will present itself as the new administration of a new country to be respected for its ability to govern itself well and be a credit to the United Nations in its human rights record.

That's All Right?

Isn't that amazing, Elections Canada which is such a stickler for form and sticking to the letter of the law relents when it suits its purpose. All in the interests of benign helpfulness.

To encourage university students to option their voting privileges. Can this mean that anyone can decide to set up a polling booth wherever they deem it might be useful? Might this mean that a local returning officer with an agenda of his own could manoeuvre opportunities on behalf of his own political choice?

After all, Elections Canada by law must give permission for the timing, dates and location of polling booths. They're held at schools right enough, but for the general voting public. And at an agreed-upon, by law, specific date. And dates of advance polling booths are also mandated by law.

So how does it happen that an impromptu and quite specific-located special ballot at University of Guelph is set up without the pre-knowledge and permission of Elections Canada?

A public-minded returns officer took it upon himself to locate and date and encourage Guelph University students to turn out and vote. And 700 votes were cast that day. It would be fascinating to have a count of those votes to determine how many were cast for specific parties.

So when the Conservatives - on the basis of the illegality of the vote - asked that Elections Canada void the event, the Liberals screamed their outrage that an initiative to encourage young Canadians to practise their citizenship obligations was being denied by those nefarious Conservatives.

And the response from Elections Canada was cool and unaccommodating.

"All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid. In light of the focus on youth and student electoral participation at the 41st general election ... a well-intentioned returning officer undertook a special initiative to create an opportunity at the University of Guelph to vote by special ballot."

Having little option but to agree, the Conservatives withdrew their request and accepted the decision of Elections Canada. And added :"We applaud the decision not to disenfranchise University of Guelph students because of errors by the local Returning Officer" rejoindered Guy Giorno, national Tory campaign chairman.

"At the same time, we are pleased that the rules for special balloting have been clarified and reconfirmed. The same rules should apply everywhere and be applied consistently across the country." Logically.

On the other hand, when Christian organizations appealed the dates of the advance votes which just happen to coincide with Easter, Elections Canada was less than accommodating, citing the law which stipulates precisely when those dates must be recognized in relation to voting day.

Interestingly enough, the NDP has declared it is interested in having an investigation launched into what precisely occurred at the university. For in the past, in 2006, the Liberals successfully had a special voting booth at the University of Toronto discounted.

Kicking at Confederation

The strange new fever of nationalism has cropped up in the most surprising of places. Uprisings in countries which have never really been known to allow their populations a whiff of liberty have taken the world by surprise. In Africa and the Middle East, that is. And perhaps that will spread elsewhere where Muslim-majority nations struggle to confine their populations to the life-attitudes that Islam imposes upon them.

The world of Islam is just a Mohammed-come-lately to the infections that appear to have spread through Europe, Africa and Asia long beforehand. Countries with artificially imposed boundaries intersecting traditional ethnic, tribal and clan lines, and countries that integrated within their borders what were originally other nations, all restively vying for secession and independence.

Here in Canada, there were rumblings of discontent in Confederation from the Western provinces, feeling their needs were overlooked and more attention than warranted given to the well-being of the people living in Central Canada, particularly the Province of Ontario. Quebec traditionally has had its nose out of joint believing that the conquest of the British over the French left them at an undeserved disadvantage.

The federal government in consultation with the provinces came up with a scheme it felt would satisfy the disparities in economic growth and taxes leading to each province's ability to offer services by re-allocating monies received through federal taxation in redistribution that would satisfy them all. The wealthy provinces, primarily Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario would provide the tax base for equalization payments to the 'have-not' provinces.

Tax-funded equalization payments to the provinces streamed out to the Maritimes, Quebec and the Prairie provinces in a forward-thinking liberal determination to ensure that wherever a Canadian lived within Confederation they could be assured of receiving roughly equal social benefits. Universal hospital-medical and education opportunities at the top of the list.

Alberta's discontent with its place in Confederation has been muted of late as it has seen a larger voice in the federal government. Quebec will never be satisfied with its place in the federation of provinces because it will always consider itself to have been short-changed as an exception of language and culture in a sea of British-based inheritance, despite the country's long engagement in immigration.

And to surprise us all, here is New Brunswick suddenly coming to declare itself yet another disaffected member of the federation. Claiming that it was historically strong-armed by Britain into accepting a place within Canada that it was reluctant to be part of, without insisting on a better deal for itself initially.

The affective fever of elective sovereignty appears to have moistened the forehead of New Brunswick as it lies back on its bed of disaffection.

This is a rather irksome turn of events. Canada slowly unravelling. Seriously? Makes one feel in a pique of annoyance, like suggesting that New Brunswick, situated where it is on the map, consider making common cause with Quebec; it is, after all, the only province that is officially bilingual.

It is irritating beyond belief that the Maritimes and Quebec, those areas most profiting by the institution of the federal government's traditional equalization-transfer payments remain perennially discontented; the most serious succubuses on the Canadian taxpayer.

There, an impolite term for an ungracious and intemperate ingratitude.

It's All About Quebec

On Tuesday there was the much-ballyhooed national debate with the three national leaders, plus one regional leader of a party dedicated to secession. Representatives of a federation and a single representative of a 'nationalist' party. To most Canadians the word 'national' evokes a nation-wide concern; to the Bloc Quebecois and its supporters - come to think of it, the province of Quebec itself, 'national' represents anything representing the province.

In the rest of Canada, national parks represent those which the federal government has officially declared the property of the people of Canada, protected by the government of Canada, representing Canada's natural heritage of which we have custody. In Quebec there are other kinds of 'national' parks, which in the rest of Canada are named provincial parks, but in La Belle Province are also provincial parks, yet 'national', since Quebec is a 'nation' unto itself.

The Province of Quebec, in fact, is so extraordinarily special, so singularly different and entitled from other provinces in Confederation that it is given special status denied or overlooked as unnecessary when it comes to the entitlements of equality of other provinces. After the nationally televised English-language election debate between the three-party-leaders-plus-one, there was a French-language debate.

Technology and courtesy makes common usage of simultaneous translation. Anyone in Quebec claiming to be unilingually francophone could be enabled to hear everything that the leaders debated through that medium. Why a French-language debate? Well, let's see: for the three party leaders to demonstrate to the French-Canadian population their proficiency in French? Possibly. To demonstrate that Canada is officially bilingual? Simultaneous translation would do that.

To speak directly to the province and its entitled population which regularly exercises its option to send to Parliament a provincial party dedicated to the break-up of Canada, whose operation is paid for by tax funds to enable it to continue lobbying for a separate, sovereign Quebec, but with certain ongoing financial entitlements. The extraction of ever greater sums of tax-funded initiatives to favour Quebec its main concern until such time as it may convince Quebec to vote for complete separation.

Which most Quebecers really don't want, as evidenced by their lacklustre interest in the potential at this time. So why have a special one-off-province debate in French? Ah, to address the concerns of the people living in that single province, of course. A curtsy to their specialness. And if at all possible, for the three national party leaders to try to convince Quebec-based voters to alter their allegiance to the Bloc which holds 47 of Quebec's 75 seats.

And so the rest of Canada can tune in to the nauseating spectacle of the leaders fawning over Quebec, issuing special province-specific promises. Michael Ignatieff promising to fund that damn professional sport stadium for the City of Quebec, and he'd be quick to write a $2.2-billion cheque for provincial/federal tax harmonization too, you bet. Any other demands, just run them by him, he's obliging.

Gilles Duceppe was able to throw his tantrums on behalf of his province, existing within some strangely inconvenient federation, about how unfair it is to undercut the province's energy sales to the U.S. by pledging a $4.2-billion loan guarantee for the development of the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project. That was a Conservative-led "slap in the face" to Quebec, and that is intolerable.

Jack Layton, campaigning to convince Quebec voters that the NDP, a federal party, is capable of meeting and further enhancing their social welfare programs, and will be dedicated to doing just that, when they form the government. So what sense does it make to vote for the Bloc instead of the NDP? Bearing in mind that Quebec truncates its representation with the Bloc in lieu of a national party.

And Gilles Duceppe crowing about what a marvellous service his party offers to the rest of Canada, taking potential votes away from the Conservatives, thus ensuring that it cannot mount a campaign successful enough to result in a majority government without Quebec's assistance. Which will continue to be sturdily denied, nyah, nyah.

Oh, and questions from the public, yes, a woman in Quebec querulously insisting that there are too few jobs to be had in the hinterlands of the province, and what is the federal government prepared to do about that? Yes, what indeed?

Snipes and Exchanges

Testy little verbal episodes revealing the ambitions and studied agendas of the participants. In the 12 April leaders' debate televised for the instruction and entertainment of Canadian voters all three opposition party leaders trotted out their disdain for the Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

All made an effort to portray him as anti-democratic, an ambitious schemer, a hard-right-wing diehard ideologue with a hidden schedule not yet embarked upon because of his insecurity as a minority parliament Prime Minister. Patiently biding his time for a majority government when all the evils of a corrupt mind intent on destroying Canadian values would be unveiled.

Memory nudges there to the Liberal Chretien government cutting back on transfers to the provinces for health and education when Paul Martin was finance minister and bringing down the deficit was more important than maintaining the integrity of Canada's social values. That too was the time when the public service was targeted for cut-backs to an extent no Conservative-led government would ever have presumed to initiate.

But the thing of it is that the Prime Minister has been governing as though he had a majority. Boldly and with vision, both of which have been dreadfully upsetting to the opposition. Who, in their criticism of everything that Stephen Harper and his well-placed Cabinet have done, from immigration to the economy, to health care and international affairs, also managed to overlook the fact that he has not unleashed his secret agenda.

No strenuous efforts to alter the social agenda of the country's social fabric and values, from universal health care to access to abortions. Many of the initiatives, in fact, that the Conservative-led government has undertaken have had the support at one time or another, when it suited their own agendas, of the various oppositions; from investing in infrastructure funding to decreasing corporate tax rates.

And there was Michael Ignatieff hammering away at the democratic ideal which he insists the Prime Minister has insulted. He would promote democracy abroad, he avers, as prime minister. "But to that you have to believe in democracy at home and Mr. Harper has betrayed democracy at home", he claimed.

And then swallowed hard when the rejoinder from Mr. Harper was that Mr. Ignatieff's clinging to the idea that he is entitled to bring down a duly elected government - referring to the 41st one this time - should the Conservatives be re-elected with another minority, as soon as he might conceivably manage it; as a reflection of the latest effort.

"That's not how our system works. The party that wins most seats forms the government. The alternative is to allow a party dedicated to the break up of the country to decide who gets into power. That's not good for the country", said Mr. Harper. And most Canadians seem to feel the very same sentiment; they want the result of their vote to be respected.

Despite which, Michael Ignatieff made no secret of his intention to reject the budget which Mr. Harper said he would re-introduce if he is once again elected. The budget was rejected, and led the way to a no-confidence vote in the government on a pretext that the government had acted prejudicially in contempt of Parliament - by not supplying the costs demanded for the prison and the F-35 initiatives.

Which the Liberal-led governments of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin also engaged in, with their majority-led governments. But obviously what is sauce for that goose wasn't so for this gander. And Jack Layton's reproach to Michael Ignatieff was rather precious: "Why do you have [the] worst attendance record of any member of the House of Commons? If you want to be prime minister, you'd better learn to be a member of Parliament first."

With Ignatieff's huffy rejoinder that "I don't surrender to anyone in my respect for the institution of Parliament or my obligation to the people who put me there, so don't give me lessons on respect for democracy", rounding out the entertainment quotient of the evening's debate.

Cosmopolitan Ignatieff

The man who would be Prime Minister has a few things to answer for. They're rather inconvenient in that they occurred at a time when running for political election in Canada couldn't have been further from his mind. Living for decades in Britain as a news hound, a public entertainer, a member of the British establishment, he cast his vote when he could, there. And quite completely identified with his country of residence.

Living in the United States as an expatriate, but one who was honoured for his academic skills - his forays into human rights and his lengthy travels to war zones and linked reportage therefrom - by a Harvard University post as a human rights expert, he became, essentially, an American-at-heart, and why not?

Decades of living comfortably in any country that shares social and political attributes with your own does render a sense of connection.

While living in the United States, Michael Ignatieff quite completely identified with American values and concerns and perspectives. Natural enough, given the length of time he lived there and his immersion in American politics, culture and society. A reflection of his lengthy period of residence in Britain when he exercised his right to be involved there, as well.

He is, if nothing else, a complete cosmopolitan. Ah, amend that somewhat: an aristocratic cosmopolitan.

As such he has completely embraced that old maxim..."when in Rome, do as the Romans do", and he most certainly did, referring to himself actually, while living in the U.S. as an American. Of course, Canadians are after all, North Americans, we share a continent with the U.S. and Mexico, though who thinks of Mexicans as other than Mexicans?

His quotes referring to himself as a Brit and as an American, are, unfortunately, coming back to snap at his electoral heels now. "I am an American Democrat. I will vote for (John) Kerry in November" and for Britain: "Why did I vote Labour? I wanted the rascals out."

Michael Ignatieff is Canadian, one with an extensive introduction-and-residence elsewhere in the world, true. Adding to his intellectual aplomb, his experience of the wider world, his comfortable essence of cosmopolitanism - and elitism.

Not very polite to state it at this juncture, but Zsuzsanna Szohar is, as her name betrays, a Hungarian-born, with due citizenship (and dual British citizenship), now tardily in the process of obtaining her Canadian citizenship.

How cosmopolitan is Ignatieff? Well, a home in Provence will do it. He owns a condo in Toronto's Yorkville, though; no financial piker he. While living in Ottawa, and aspiring to 24 Sussex Drive.

If For No Other Reason....

The relatively new funding of political election campaigns in Canada through taxpayer-funded allowances reflecting ballots cast for each party, valued at $2 per vote to fund political parties isn't such a great idea, even if its supporters consider it the most democratic way to go. Political parties are capable of raising their own funds from their own supporters. They should be left to do so.

While at first blink it may seem like a good idea to dispense largesse to enable Canadian political parties to relax about raising funds for election campaigns and focus their attention on conducting the campaigns themselves, a closer look should be given to the protocol. Elections Canada already dispenses roughly $29-million in reimbursing for qualifying election expenses.

Is it really all that great an idea to dispense an additional $28-million to match the number of votes each party receives in a campaign? It mightn't actually be all that bad an idea to continue the practise - if it were not for the existence of a province-specific political party whose sole purpose is to battle Confederation on behalf of an independent, sovereigntist Quebec.

Why in the world would Canadian taxpayers be expected to fund a political party intent on (1) extracting all the benefits and funding conceivable through transfer payments and by additional extortion and blackmail to further entitle Quebec, and (2) continue encouraging Quebecois to support the battle for complete independence from Confederation.

We permit a sovereigntist group to sit as a 'nationalist' federal political party which has constituents in one province only. We accord that party full Parliamentary privileges and democratic respect, when it is completely disinterested in the future of Canada, and wholly dedicated to dividing the country. Must we also generously fund that party to enable it to conduct its campaigns?

The Bloc Quebecois depends on the per-vote subsidy for about 50% of its funding. French-Canadian voters reward that party with a majority, sending it back to Parliament, rather than supporting a national federal political party, to maintain their edge and successfully barter for increased privileges. If they're so dedicated to that party, let them fund it with their donations out of their own pockets.

Remove the public subsidy, then the test to challenge the Bloc's complacency and financial integrity would be halfway met. The $2.8-million that the Bloc received after the 2008 election results were in is an affront to Canadians and the values they hold dear. Primarily the wish to hold the country together as a whole, not fragment it as the Bloc is determined to do.

Lessons In Disrespect

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe is on a roll. He's content with his role in life, too. Highly supported by the province's electorate, he's comfortable with the knowledge that none of the national parties have anything approximating his edge. French-Canadians seem to enjoy seeing the rest of Canada squirm. Why else would they keep electing to Parliament, a party and a leader whose only function is to keep thumping away at the public consciousness that Quebec must be sovereign?

Of course, the pundits would have it otherwise, that most Quebecois have no intention of supporting sovereignty; that ship has long since sailed with an empty cargo hold. What they like is that Gilles Duceppe is so adept at holding the feet of the ROC to the fire of uncertainty. Everyone wants to make Quebecers happy.

Particularly Gilles Duceppe, whose concern as party leader is not with the well-being of Canada, but that of Quebec. And whatever he can squeeze out of Canada to benefit Quebec he will.

Relentlessly he blasts and blames Canada for not doing enough for Quebec. That Quebec is entitled to far, far more than she currently extracts from the rest of Canada. The 'equalization' transfer payments that Quebec has relied upon for far too long, permit the province to live in a manner unseen by the other provinces, even those whose largesse pays for Quebec's standard of living. It is never quite enough, however.

It never occurs to Gilles Duceppe and his caucus that there is something irritatingly immoral about an openly-separatist party being permitted by a democratic society to sit like a canker on the body politic, grating and nauseatingly entitled to receiving all the taxpayer-funded emoluments required to sustain it, to allow it to run campaigns that slur the country, along with election campaigns, convincing Quebecers to support separation.

That the federal government recently promised to guarantee $4.2-billion in loans for the Lower Churchill Falls energy generation project and delivery lines, angering the province that considers that action a "slap in the face" to Quebec is rather rich, given Quebec's unwillingness to re-visit an historic agreement with Newfoundland that enriches Quebec, ignoring Newfoundland's equal entitlements.

And when a Conservative candidate for the 2011 election campaign made mention of the fact that is is 'normal' for federal money to flow more heavily toward Conservative-held ridings, Mr. Duceppe denounces that as "disrespectful" to Parliament. Unsurprisingly, most onlookers would be amazed to witness Gilles Duceppe being "respectful" to Parliament.

For stating an obvious, if unfortunate truth, to be labelled "completely stupid" and "disrespectful" is pretty rich, considering its source.

Democratic Deficit

In Ivory Coast, the latest of the African countries, following Kenya and Zimbabwe, where the president set aside the results of a democratic election to inform the country that he has no intention of stepping down and the opposition can go stuff itself, chaos has resulted, with government and opposition forces both on a tribal-slanted slaughter mission. In Ivory Coast, French intervention will shortly settle the question of legal, democratic order.

But the thousands who have died in an orgy of hated and revenge as the two sides seek advantage in the contested election fall-out will remain a blot on democratic procedure. Democracy is new to Africa, but deadly tribal antipathies leading to mass slaughter most definitely are not. When the two are harnessed, the newer social-political convention is supposed to surmount the traditional war-mongering disagreements between clan and tribe, but there is a long way yet to go on that path.

There are reminders on occasion that even in Canada, where the population does not resort to primitive violence and democracy has as long a pedigree as the country has existed, people still react on occasion with a vestige of the same blistering entitlements leading to bitter dissent. One might suppose if this were to occur anywhere in Canada, it is likelier to happen in a rural setting, rather than an urban one.

Urbanites are more shall we say - urbane, sophisticated in their thinking and reactions; cosmopolitan in their understanding of the social contract. While rural dwellers are understandably closer to the land, so their inherited and primal instinctiveness is instructed through a dimly recalled and subliminal acknowledgement of collective memory known as the survival instinct.

All this to say that in the recently-concluded provincial nomination in the Carleton-Mississippi Mills riding for the Progressive Conservative Party, the riding association itself was taken aback when a well-planned campaign with more support locally than they might have realized existed was successful in finally unseating 69-year-old veteran MPP Norm Sterling.

One might ask, isn't 34 years at the public trough as a politico long enough for anyone? When might someone of his vintage and his experience consider it is time to move aside and allow others to take up where he left off? Particularly when many in the riding may not consider theirs to be a fiefdom; rather a riding in need of someone who will become actively engaged in presenting their interests at Queens Park.

Mr. Sterling's opponent, Jack MacLaren, a West Carleton farmer and libertarian, will now join his next-door colleague Randy Hillier who represents the riding of Lanark-Frontenac Lennox and Addington where both of them may partner in tilting at frustrating-landowner windmills. As for Mr. Sterling's ire; longevity in a political contest is never an assurance of easy victory, nor should it be.

The manner in which a politician acquits him/herself on behalf of his/her constituents is the ruling order here. It is a democracy, after all, that we celebrate and live within. And which civil people recommend for other nations so they too may realize fairness and justice. And to be completely fair, the grudging acceptance of the inevitable by Mr. Sterling fits him exceedingly ill.

In that the ill grace that he evinced in his unwillingness to accept that the electorate chose a replacement rather than allow him to continue as their representative shines a nasty light upon his character. His grumpiness in alluding to his continued challenge to maintain a seat by running as an independent, his public flirtation with abandoning his party during the election by voting for another party should a personal friend decide to run, does him no credit.

What he does demonstrate is a vain conceit in his belief that he alone represents the needs of the area's constituents, and his cantankerous rejection of the idea that someone else may now be in a better position to do just that, reflects his own sad lack of principle.