Re: Daily Digest January 10, 2006

Joe:

 

If I were someone who mattered on the national media scene that is covering Canadian Politics, and cared about my work, I would be putting the idea that Harper raised of putting property rights in to the charter.

 

Once the charter is opened for one thing, it is open for all.

 

It is not like penning a lone calf, but a whole herd of cats.

 

To get the property rights into the constitution involves getting the approval of all provinces, and the Senate.

 

Politics is all about horse trading.  What is Harper prepared to give up or change? All the media are focused on Bone Head Martin, but not one word is being raised on this issue.

 

There has to be someone in the media in Western Canada that is not fixated on Harper to the exclusion of examining closely what Harper is saying here.

 

Maybe a discussion here on what could be changed and would be taken out or added to the charter if Harper is able to open it up?

 

What will property rights do for the oil and gas industry or governments who appropriate land for infrastructure? What will this do when it come to crime fighting? Does it mean all people will be able to own a gun because that is a piece of property and the government will not be able to restrict that at all?

 

I think this is something that shows the true nature of Harper, and that he is prepared maybe to allow each province to build a firewall around themselves in exchange for property rights being put in the charter.

 

Harper certainly has not made this policy idea a focal point in any of his campaign speeches or media events.

 

Why?

 

Why did the Premiers of Ontario and Alberta not want property rights in the first charter?

 

Let it be known, I am not slamming Harper on this, and don't find it a bad policy idea, but it is something that needs to be examined and discussed by Canadians, seriously.

Norm Greenfield

403-807-1251

Calgary, Alberta

normfg(at)hotmail.com