Skip to comments.Great oraTory dismantles Grits
Posted on 05/15/2005 6:14:21 AM PDT by Clive
The other day I heard complaint after complaint about the base level of dialogue and oratory in the House of Commons.
Sure, things have degenerated of late, but there are times when great oratory can be heard.
Just such an example happened on Wednesday, when Stephen Harper, Leader of the Official Opposition and the Conservative party, delivered a lengthy, expertly crafted and well-delivered speech, that outlined why the Liberals should no longer be running the country.
The speech, which was delivered one day after the House voted 153 to 150 against the governing Liberals, is 13 pages long.
Harper delivered some zinger lines, but that night just one short quote from it was used on the CBC National. And yet that same day and the next on CBC, "analysts" complained about the level of oratory again.
So, I will fill in some of the gaps ignored by the CBC as to why the Conservative party can no longer abide supporting a government which has been shown to be corrupt, fiscally irresponsible and blatantly undemocratic.
Harper pointed out that, five years ago, an internal audit was released that gave the first clues of the scandal hiding within the Sponsorship Program, designed to better the federalist cause in a post-referendum Quebec.
"There is a long story behind the delayed release of that audit for the 2000 election," pointed out Harper.
Then came the Auditor General's report on government advertising, released in February of last year, which confirmed that out of the $250 million sponsorship program, "much of which was spent on activities of questionable value in the first place, more than $100 million in commissions went to five Liberal-friendly advertising agencies with little or no evidence of work being performed for the contracts.
"We all remember the famous case where Groupaction received $550,000 to submit a photocopy of a report identical to a report it had prepared the previous year," for another $500,000.
Harper pointed out in his speech that through the inquiry by Justice John Gomery, we have since learned that the Liberal party received much of this stolen money "through a sophisticated network and scheme of money laundering.
"In recent days, we have been viewing the revolting spectacle of Liberal witnesses before the Gomery commission describing how thick the envelopes of money they received in secret were.
"While the rest of Canada is striving to earn an honest living, support their families and meet their obligations, including paying income tax, we can see these Liberal organizers and their friends trying to remember whether they received their dirty money in $20s or $100s," quipped Harper.
Harper then pointed out how Prime Minister Paul Martin vowed in February 2004 that he would return "every penny of dirty money," but now we're hearing a different story.
"The Liberal party fought the 1997 and 2000 elections with dirty money. This is a fact. Since the Liberals did not return any of the money in 2004, they fought the last election with dirty money, and now it looks, in violation of an order of the House, as though they are willing to fight a fourth straight election with money that has been stolen from the Canadian taxpayers."
Since April 21, Paul Martin has promised to spend an additional $23,460,838 -- or $23.46 billion -- without any discussions taking place in Parliament and even though he no longer has the confidence of the House. Martin doesn't have the authority to spend an additional 23 cents nevermind $23 billion.
But the worst corruption has to be how the Liberals have undermined our judiciary.
Most disturbingly, said Harper, are the confessions under oath of "the former executive director of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec.
"He has gone on record saying that a member of the judicial advisory committee responsible for selecting judges for the province of Quebec was in the habit of calling him to find out how much money lawyers who are potential judicial candidates had contributed to the party," said Harper.
"The Liberals have undermined Canadians' confidence in our political system and even manipulated our judicial system ... and is a threat to Canadian democracy.
"Spending taxpayer money without parliamentary approval, cancelling opposition day debates, ignoring majority votes in the House, filibustering its own legislation and ignoring calls for the government to resign is not the behaviour of a democratic government. None of it is consistent with the spirit and the principles of parliamentary democracy," said Harper.
"A year ago, the prime minister was promising to slay the democratic deficit," added Harper.
"Today, he is threatening to slay democracy itself.
"The prime minister, I add, has no moral authority to govern and has no constitutional or democratic authority after Tuesday to govern this country."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
It was high oratory in every way.
Too bad our Liberal apologist national broadcaster thought so little of it.
Anyway, the past few nights, as the scandals of Canadian politics roared within Parliament, CBC's nightly news program typically does one story about it each night. The story invariably focuses on the procedural details of the days machinations; no mention whatsoever is made of anything larget than that. Until I read this article, I had no idea that anything serious was going on. The questions that are put, by the show's anchors, to whatever guests they have on, seem to be calculated to make the guests sound like airheads (the anchorettes always sound like airheads anyway; they actually seem to cultivate a style that says everything in the news is just sillyness, except when the American Government does something nasty somewhere; then the tut-tutting goes into overdrive).
After the one nightly story about procedural details of the days action in Parliament, which would bore to tears anyone who happened to be listening, they proceed to devote the remainder of the hour to stories about lost kittens and eccentric Englishmen, or at any rate to minor research by English scientists, who are made to sound eccentric by the condescending interviewers.
I guess this is the European style. Make yourself sound grand and enlightened by laughing at the world around you, and if there's a massive fire in the basement, why, that's a big joke too, can't you see the humor?
as I said on another thread..... Now that Canada has FoxNews, they need a Canadian version of it. There are some very good conservative journalists up there who deserve some good airtime to get the "rest of the story" out there for Canadians. They've been duped now for far too long.
I don't know if you have a Canada ping list or not, but if you do, I'd like to be on it... tyvm
I have added you to my Canada list.
We've been following it here:
ADSCAM: Click the picture, goto the "last," and work back for the latest-
thank you, Clive. Do you know of a link to the full transcript of Harper's "oratory"? I'd love to read the full transcript.
Here is my bookmark:
Here is the May 11 sitting:
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Use search term Harper on the May 11 sitting. He appears during Question Period and later as the final speech of the day in which he moved adjournment.
It ain't any better down here.
Thanks Clive, much appreciated!
Interesting. I had the impression that Fox was now available through cable anywhere cable was available. I am very familiar with the CBC, CTV and the CRTC. I am Canadian born, but have been a US citizen for 30 years. Still have family there and visit fairly often. Family hates the CBC... after all, as long as they are getting taxpayer money from government, especially a liberal one, they will never be "fair and balanced".
I subscribe to Rogers cable. By bundling services, including broadband and digital cable, I was able to get a discount and wound up paying about the same, including the converter box, as I was previously paying for them as separate services.
But, of course, Fox is not avaiable on the ordinary analog cable service to which most people subscribed until recently. I switched to digital specifically to get Fox and I have it programmed as the station that comes up when I turn on the set.
There is a difference between digital service and High Definition service. The High definition service needs a much more expensive television set and the converter box rents for twice as much. This is not needed to get Fox News.
My point as to the difference between digital and high definition is that many people are reluctant to sign up for digital because they equate it with the more expensive high definition and believe that they would either have to make a large capital investment or put up with a squashed down picture. This was what my sister believed until she came to my home and saw the digital services showing normally on a standard tv set.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.