Friday, 30 August 2013

A dopey leader with pretty hair, a puff of fuffy policy and a hearty "Hi-ho, Justin!" The Lone Lamoureux!

Yep, the Lone Lamoureux (AKA as Kevin Lamoureux, MP Winnipeg North), is riding the plains of Winnipeg again, metting out his unique form of injustice.

I got a mailer from the "Honorable" MP yesterday in my mail box, despite the no junk mail warnings taped to it. It included in part, this whopper....

"Does the New Democratic Party see the mote in their adversary’s eye but not
the beam in their own?

It looks like it now that the NDP is requesting an RCMP investigation into
the Mike Duffy gong show while their leader, Thomas Mulcair, keeps refusing to
answer very basic questions about his own lies concerning a bribe offered to him
in 1994 by the then-Laval mayor, Gilles Vaillancourt.

Three years ago, former Parti Quebecois justice minister Serge Menard
admitted that the Laval mayor offered him $10,000 cash in an envelope. The day
after, another Liberal Member of the National Assembly, Vincent Auclair, also
confessed he had the same bribe offered by the same politician.

My colleague Brian Lilley then clearly asked Mulcair a few days later, in
November 2010: “Were you ever offered cash in an envelope by the mayor of Laval?
Did you ever see envelopes of cash around the mayor of Laval?”
Mulcair answered with a straight “no.”

Mulcair even went further. He said that if ever an envelope was offered to
him, he would immediately go to the police and wondered why Menard waited more
than 15 years before he came out publicly.

A few months later, in 2011, Mulcair changed his version of the story when
the police knocked at his door and interviewed him. He then admitted he met
Vaillancourt in 1994 and was offered an envelope, and he added “it was clear
that this was money.”

From, http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/22/thomas-mulcair-pushes-the-envelope-in-ethics-talk, and written by that Scion and believer in an open and accurate press, the fun-lovin, Eric Haimel.

My Lib MP, the truth seeking, honest as the day is long, fair minded, non-partisan, Kevin Lamouruex quoted only part of this artice in his latest mailer, adding "I know that is the above would have happened to our current Prime Minster ther would have bee an uproar in Ottawa The qestion is shoul Mr. Mulcair be let off the hook becse he is only the Leaderof the NDP and not the Prime Minister".

So of course, being unable to resist the urge, I emailed our erstwhile MP, as follows:

"Mr. Lamoureux:

I received your latest missive regarding your work on behalf of the consitituents of Winnipeg North. I couldn't help but notice the smearing of Mr. Mulcair.

I did check out your reference and see you only quoted it in part; I was wondering why that it is? I must say I obeject to your underhanded attack on the Leader of the Opposition. Your action in this matter simply confirms my belief, as I have communicated to you previously, that you are completely unsuited to sit in the House as the representative of the entirety of the constituency of Winnipeg North. I would say it is not a stretch concluding that your actions confirm that you obviously place petty partisanship ahead of building consensus and seem to have no difficulty with smearing and despoiling the reputations of your political opponents if it meets your own petty partisan goals.

Further to this, I note that you still have not replied to my previous two emails regarding FIPA (see my previous post for more on this). Is it your belief that you are only obligated to reply to supporters? Do you believe that you are above the need to answer queries from all your contituents? Do you feel it is below you or not worth your time, and that anyone who demands you be accoutable is of insignificant statue and not worthy or deserving of a response? Or is it instead more likely the simple truth that you know that in actual fact, there is no defense for your stance?

I now demand your reply as a consitutent of Winnipeg North. It is my right as YOUR consituent, regardless of whether I do or do not support you. Your requirement to reply is not optional, nor up to you decide.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Thank-you."

Honestly, I don't expect any kind of response from Mr. Lamoureux. He's kind of like one of those Cockroaches, you know, the kind that scurries out from under a rock when you lift it up and then scampers under something else for safety before you even have the chance to crush it under your foot.

Then just to add insult to injury, and from the same mailer, this beaut...

"...the NDP's opposition to abolish the Senate is a crude attempt to get votes and destroy any form of positive reform...."

OK, regarding this...notwithstanding that Lamoureux' whole flyer is a "crude attempt to get votes", it has been the NDP/CCF position from almost its inception that the Senate should be abolished; from Lamoureux though, he continues to be one who has no trouble keeping truth from getting in the way of a good story.

Well, there'll be more of this to follow. I am waiting for a reply to Lamoureux's assertion from the Honorable Leader of the Opposition and will post his reply as soon as I receive it. Unlike Mr Trudeau, who doesn't want to make any public statements on policy because he "doesn't want to short change discussion", on that or frankly any other topic that doesn't suit his fancy, Mr. Mulcair actually does believe in open and transparent discussion.  As for Mr. Lamoureux, I'll keep trying to get an actual response from "the people first MP".....

Hi, Ho Justin, Away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UPDATE: I just received an email from Mr. Lamoureux inviting me to his office for a face to face. I will post after meeting with him.



Monday, 12 August 2013

Vic Toews as U of W President?

Vic Toews receives on honorary
degree from University of Winnipeg
president Lloyd Axworthy in 2010.

Will Toews succeed Axworthy come July 2014?

Image Source
JOE.BRYKSA@FREEPRESS.MB.CA
/Winnipeg Free Press 
Vic Toews left parliament this summer to focus on "family" and the "private sector". Meanwhile, some conservatives in Provencher are urging that Pallister CON Kelvin Goertzen run as a Harper CON in the federal byelection. Others think he's better as a provincial MLA because he can take down the provincial NDP - a notion highly dubious as he frequently falls into PR disasters.

But, really, what's most intriguing now is what's next for Vic Toews.

One particular suggestion has really caught my attention: that Vic Toews will become the next President of the University of Winnipeg.