NOTICE OF ACTION!
Contact: David Honey
Tel: 905 562-3659

This is notice to the MNR that if charges of any kind are laid against Bob MacKie as a result of the Niagara Escarpment Commission decision of November 15, 2007 that the Ontario Landowners Association will begin an escalating series of actions that will have significant political consequences. These actions may include tractor blockades of major highways in the Niagara Region.

Seeking to preserve our rural identities, traditions, security, prosperity and the fundamental principles of natural justice

——————————————————————————–

If you require more background information, please contact the following:

David Honey, President, Niagara Landowners Association
Ph: 905 562-3659

Jack MacLaren, President, Ontario Landowners Association
Ph.:613 832-3201
Cell: 613 223-5534

Original Posting…

BOB MACKIE WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT!

“Justice for Bob MacKie Day”

On March 21, “Good Friday", Bob MacKie will host an archery tournament of celebration at Mackie’s Mountain Archery, 3922 Zimmerman Rd., Beamsville from 9am - 5pm. that will be a fund raiser for the “Brain Injury Community Re-Entry Program” Bob is celebrating the indefinite continuation of his archery training business despite the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s ruling against his business.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission voted “NO” to allowing Bob MacKie to continue to operate his archery training business on November 15, 2007. The NEC said that “archery” was not mentioned in their Official Plan as an allowed use on “agricultural land". They gave him 120 days to “STOP” doing archery. March 19th was the 120th day and Bob intends to carry on with archery training.

He has the full support of the Ontario Landowners Association and its members from across Ontario. Bob’s archery training is a much appreciated service that his community supports. The OLA will be declaring that “archery is a permitted use of agricultural land in the Niagara Region". The law of “natural justice” determines that what Bob is doing “is right"!

1.00 P.M. there will be speeches from members of the community and the Ontario Landowners Association in support of Bob MacKie.

Seeking to preserve our rural identities, traditions, security, prosperity and the fundamental principles of natural justice
###

If you require more background information, please contact the following:
Jack MacLaren, President, Ontario Landowners Association
613 832 3201 cell: 613 223 5534
Bob Mackie
905-563-7336

Here’s an interesting little poll posted today on the website of the Globe and Mail Newspaper.

The question:

“Do you think Canada should work more closely with the U.S. to map out a mutually beneficial public policy agenda?”

The results at the time of this post are interesting to say the least, as you can see from the screen shot below. The question of course is redundant because this is already a reality in both countries. To bad Americans were not more “American” and Canadians too, maybe this would not have happened. It will, however, be a good barometer for the media-merchants to use to determine their next course of action with respect to convincing those of us who still believe in sovereignty and rule of law, that this is a good idea. You know, before they tell us is already a done deal. Can you say “North American Union?” nice try you conspiracy nut…

The poll can be found here.

The results so far..

Related:
Canada, U.S. agree to share troops in civil emergencies

Doug Plumb, confirmed Toronto Centre Riding candidate for the Canadian Action Party, openly discusses Communitarian Law and Agenda 21 as part of his platform. Some snippets from his piece Sustainable Tyranny (pdf) include:

“This booklet is all about the Security & Prosperity Partnership Agreement (otherwise known as the North American Union or the Public Private Partnership between USA, Canada & Mexico. This is a part of the Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 or The New World Order agenda that Bush Sr. talked about in the nineties during the previous Iraq war. These agendas are all about transforming our society to the Third Way, New Soviet and Communitarian legal system. The Third Way is an Ownership society where everything is owned by central powers. Individualism and property rights will become things of the past and unaccountable, autocratic rulers will govern society with an iron-fisted police state.
This is all being set up in secret and no one that only views or reads mainstream/corporate media knows anything about it. If you ever wondered about things like this or where money comes from then read on.

“What pleases me most is that sustainable development is on almost everybody’s agenda now.” - Maurice Strong”

“The type of new world government system is known as a collectivist or communitarian government. You and the product of your labour become the property of government. Individual rights or freedoms have no place in this new world order. This is socialism and it’s being adopted because it doesn’t work for the masses of people (it only works for the people at the very top of the power structure).”

“Fascism occurs as a result of a “public-private partnership” according to Mussolini. Fascism occurs when corporations and governments unite. This is exactly what is happening today in secret. Laws (including your right to habeas-corpus and double jeopardy protection) are being rewritten secretly in stealth with corporations and governments working together and led by the banks. The new laws that will be put into place as a result of the North American Union are known as “communitarian laws.”

“Communitarian law is a type of administrative law. Many lawyers over the past 20 years have made administrative law their specialty. Communitarian law is also known as “The Third Way” or the “New Soviet” and it is a way of centralizing an unaccountable government.”

Visit Doug’s campaign site at dougplumb.com

Link: http://nord.twu.net/acl/2020.html

These two wonderful gals have been sacrificing and struggling for many years to get the word out about the U.N.(among others) plan for our common future. If you want a comprehensive and up to date account of who and what is behind the curtain pulling the levers in your local city councils all the way up to the federal government and beyond, order and read this book. Nobody is going to tell you this stuff, you won’t find it in the papers or on the tell-a-vision. If you want to understand where we are headed and why your voice seems to fall on deaf ears, this book is a good primer. For $20 (includes S&H) you can help support this much needed and quality research.

Site link and ordering info:

2020: Our Common Destiny

From the back cover:

Our common destiny is mandatory

There is an old social theory that in order to create a healthier planet, people everywhere must learn the value of collectivism. If we will just put the community before self-centered concerns, mankind can eliminate war and poverty. To many, it is our evolutionary destiny and our moral duty to comply with the spirit of community.

Communitarianism was embraced by leaders in every nation after it was financed by the international banking elite. Today the theory of community influences all aspects of life: news, science, money, law, land use, health, education, policing and employment, not to mention the arts, fashion, fundraising, causes and entertainment. Community is the buzzword on everybody’s lips these days.

Skeptics claim that an enormous system of control is impossible. Government officials regularly deny plans for national integration at the regional or global levels. But community government is real. As the year 2020 approaches, world domination looks less like an episode of Pinky and the Brain all the time.

Evidence of a supranational government is so abundant that it would take years to study everything about it. 2020: Our Common Destiny is for people who don’t have years to read but want to catch up on what has happened to their world… in under a hundred pages.

Told with spine-chilling quotes and commentary, 2020: Our Common Destiny is the true story of how two American women followed a paper trail from their lowly Seattle neighborhood to the United Nations. Lies and twisted ideology could not hide what they were destined to uncover: our common destiny, a hellish vision of mandatory communitarian utopia.

“Magnificent! A very important educational tool.”
Author and teacher Nancy Levant

“A really good read. Very informative. Thanks for the enlightenment.”
Anchorage Attorney Lance Christian Wells

The following post is posted on Denfendthyself.com. You see taking our land and enforcing a new vision on you is a little difficult if you have the means and ability to defend yourself:

Here is a cached version from Google

You boys better be ready to give up your guns, according to a report called The Human Right Of Self Defense, a subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that “there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which all governments are required to enforce immediately.”

The Human Right of Self-Defense
David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3

I. INTRODUCTION

“Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”

Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws?

The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms. The UN and allied NGOs further declare that insufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citizen firearms possession.

This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself.

If you start reading this, you start to see that while the U.N. would have a very difficult time to get Congress to pass such draconian laws, it would be another thign to try and collect those guns. An interesting tidbit states, “…a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.”

It also reminds us of the Frey report, written by Barbara Frey, who was put on the HRC subcommission by the Clinton Administration, who strongly supported U.N. gun control efforts. Note to Hillary Clinton supporters; I bet she will also back draconian UN Gun control laws, and push to change our gun laws and I would not doubt even try for a possible grab IF she made it to office.

It goes on to show how completely incompetent and inept the U.N. is, that eventually the HRC was abolished in 2005, after it was shown that some of it’s memebers that promoted gun control were actually members that performed genocide, slave trading, strict control of their citizens, and state terrorism. The Human Rights Council was an oxymoron and actually an adversary of promoting human rights.

Incredibly, the HRC was resurected the next year as the exact same thing and fully embraced the Frey Report which says that all national governments are required by International law to implement various levels of gun control.

I am not liking this women, or the U.N. at all. It gets worse.

Of course the subcommission has little power to enforce its wishes directly, but the declaration gives national government officials, including courts, considerable support to promote restrictive gun laws which are, according to the UN, mandated by international law. The full Human Rights Council is scheduled to take up the issue, and indications at the time of this writing suggest that the full Council will ratify most or all of Frey’s report. The Chairman of the full Human Rights Council has already announced his enthusiastic support for the Frey Report, the subcommission’s adoption of the report, and the prospect of using the Human Rights Council to advance a worldwide gun control mandate.

The Frey Report, then, is not simply a scholarly paper that will be filed away in a United Nations library. It is an effort to establish a new norm of international human rights law, and this effort to establish the new norm is supported by the United Nations Human Rights Council, as one aspect of the UN’s far-ranging support for restrictive and confiscatory firearms policies.

The United Nations General Assembly began drafting an international Arms Trade Treaty in late 2006. A stated purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty is to prohibit arms transfers which violate human rights.51 As interpreted by the HRC and Frey, every firearms sale in the United States would be a human rights violation; this is because even the most restrictive jurisdictions in the United States—such as Washington, D.C., or New York City—do not meet the minimum Frey/HRC gun control standards.

Ok, that’s about all of this I want to write about as I am getting really, really sick. Read the report, understand the U.N. wants your guns, and ask Hillary & the gun grabber Obama if they support the Frey report and do they plan on implementing their gun control mandates?

If you are an elephant, ask Romney (gun grabber), McCain, or Huckster what are their positions on gun control? Lets start talking about real issues, instead of still talking about change. We need change, we need to get the hell out of the United Nations and not put a Socialistic gun grabber in the White house…

Comments?

Christopher Winkler
Provider of Self Defense Products
http://DefendThyself.com

Find out how to recognize and counter facilitation and group manipulation tactics and regain control of your meetings and your future, watch Bev Eakman’s speech in the following video. We all need to understand how and why we are being led to the ridiculous belief that private property, liberty and the rule of law are now undesirable and need to be “transformed” for the benefit of the so-called “common good.”

Visit Freedom Advocates for more excellent videos and presentations:

January 25, 2008

By Tom DeWeese
American Policy Center

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead America away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.” The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.

Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.

Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.

In fact, a recent study reported that elected city councils and commissioners have lost approximately 10% of their legislative power during the past 10 years, while, through the consensus process, the power of private groups called Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has increased by as much as 300%. It is a wrenching transformation, indeed.

The Three Es

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.

The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction.

The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 Es).

Social Equity

Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for something called “social justice.” It should be noted that the first person to coin the phrase “social justice” was Karl Marx. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.” How does this differ from Communism?

This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.”

Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker/person will be a direct capital owner.” Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community.”

Economic Prosperity

Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships.

In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses – particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vice versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.

Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.

As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.

Ecological Integrity

“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.” from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.

This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man reacts with nature –which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. In fact, the report from the 1976 UN Habitat I conference said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights – as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity…combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”

The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.

Link: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html

From eagleforum.org original article can be found Here…

How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to “oneness of mind” (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, “oneness of mind” will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as “facilitators” or “change agents,” who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear “sensible,” while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is “community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form “task forces,” urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the “leaders,” the “loud mouths,” the “weak or non-committal members,” and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and “devil’s advocates.” Using the “divide and conquer” principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear “ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic.” They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.

The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The “targets” rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.

How the Delphi Technique Works

Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus.

In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to “discuss” what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those “discussions” influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in communities and school districts all across the country. Let’s review the process that occurs in these meetings.

First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion.

The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don’t want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.

Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: “Those running the meeting compiled the results.” Oh-h! The next question is: “How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?” The typical answer is: “Well, I’ve wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn’t seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority.”

That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone’s input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group’s comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don’t question the process.

Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they’ll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they’ll resist.

The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a “participatory democracy” in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.

How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique

Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.

1. Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

2. Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don’t want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, “That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . .” and repeat your question.

3. Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn’t work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: “But you didn’t answer my question. My question was . . .” and repeat your question.

Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It’s called crowd control.

At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: “But you didn’t answer that lady/gentleman’s question.” Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what’s going on.

Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.

A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members.

This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique.

Lynn Stuter is an education researcher in Washington state. Her web site address is http://www.learn-usa.com/.

Link: http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/39-1/l010.htm

Good for you Randy, keep it up and kudos to Ms. Lisa MacLeod for her support.

From Hansard Index December 13, 2007

Mr. Randy Hillier:

I’m proud to rise today as a representative for the riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, to stand up and to speak out for the people of my riding as their Progressive Conservative member. Isn’t it fitting that a brand new riding has the opportunity to bring a brand new message to Toronto and Queen’s Park, a brand new message delivered with conviction, spoken with passion and that resonates with resolve and respect?

The people of Ontario and my riding are blessed with an exceptional ancestry and rich history. Our forefathers came here long ago into a vast land of wilderness and hardships, with little more than their dreams and ambitions on their backs and in their minds. However, they would not recognize Ontario today with all our modern technology, our highways, hospitals, high-rises, industry, and schools, and with so many conveniences. But all of what we have today is built on the foundations that our ancestors laid.

Many of our ancestors came from the Old World, where property ownership, individual freedoms and political representation was unknown. These rights and freedoms were the exclusive domain and privilege of the aristocracy, but with their new freedoms and their labours, they built a new world and a new country. They created prosperity with freedom.

However, if our ancestors could see Ontario today, they would see that many of the rights, freedoms and justice that they cherished are being eroded, and we must help to rebuild them. They would see the Old World aristocracy they fled migrating into a New World bureaucracy. The people in my riding and myself know that when legislation removes the individual’s responsibility, we create an irresponsible society, and if we remove the rights and freedoms of others, we will lose our own rights tomorrow. We also know that respect for the law is complete only when laws respect people.

The Premier’s response to my questions last week illustrate the growing difference between urban and rural Ontario, a difference filled with a cradle full of nanny-state legislation. Last week, I was referred to as an anti-government champion. Whether I’m a champion or not, I do not know, but I am a strong advocate for good government.

The Premier also stated that he has significantly different views than I. Well, I’m sure that’s clear to everyone here. I would say that we are at least a country mile apart on our views about Ontario. The Premier illustrated the difference, saying that he can’t take care of his lands-he needs government to do this; that he can’t educate or care for his children-he needs government to do that as well; and that he can’t build the economy-he needs government. “Can’t” is the word that characterizes the Liberal government, and what I am not.

In rural Ontario, we can: We can take care of our lands and our waters, we can take care of our children and our families, and we can build our economy, if the government stops telling us we can’t. In rural Ontario, we know that governments are created to prevent injustice, not to create injustice; that government is here to represent the people, not to fund special interest groups; that government is here to protect people and their property from others, not from themselves; and that rewards are found by taking risks. Eliminate risk, and rewards are lost. Our true heritage and our unique culture must flourish throughout Ontario, both urban and rural-people who can, not people who can’t.

I learned a lesson a long time ago: If you tolerate injustice, you will accept tyranny; if you tolerate falsehoods, you will breed liars; if you tolerate a little bit of stealing, you will encourage cheaters; if you tolerate excuses, you create dishonesty. The lesson in life is clear: In life, you get what you tolerate.

I prefer honesty over tolerance. Political correctness is often the cause of this tolerance. We have become fearful to speak truthfully for fear of offending someone, somewhere, some time. However, it’s better to be truthful than to make excuses.

As I look back on the flowery words and the beautiful phrases of the throne speech, the government claims to have a plan for today’s economy. It claims to have a plan for jobs, the best jobs, to build the strongest economy, to work with businesses and labour to attract, retain, and create good, high-paying jobs. Then I look at the reality: the tobacco farmers going bankrupt by government policy, the butcher shops being forced to close, the mills in the forests full of layoffs and silence. I see a never-ending attack of expensive overregulation that is destroying our small businesses. Our contractors cannot hire our youth because of rigid apprenticeship ratios, and the cost of doing business in Ontario is so high, people are leaving or simply closing their doors.

In my view, our rural economy and industries such as Hershey’s, Nestlé and Domtar must stay in Ontario, not leave for Mexico or China, and they cannot be placed on Ontario’s endangered species list. In my view, we must remove the red tape, the regulations and the incompetence so that our farmers’ markets, our tourist resorts, our sawmills and our butchers can flourish, not flounder-and where our children can expect more than a minimum wage.

A throne speech full of hollow words ought to be expected after four years of broken promises. I know that legislation for the public good grows government and that legislation that protects individual freedoms trims the bureaucracy, that legislation requires objectives in order to measure accountability, that people who bear the consequence of legislation must be the decision-makers and also own the expense. Finally, I understand that there is an exception to every rule, and that legislation is needed for those rare circumstances, not the common occurrence.

1600

For two weeks now, I have witnessed the workings of our provincial Parliament. I see representatives who have put forth significant time and effort to be elected and who have an unquenchable thirst and desire and vivid dreams to make changes and improve our province. However, I also see theatrics. I hear the scripted lines of the actors and the actresses, the cameo roles of the stars. I see the makeup artists, the stage hands and the special effects people. They are all here to create a wonderful illusion and fine entertainment.

I’m here to advocate for the people of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, to provide them value and to show them that their democracy and mine is real, it is tangible and it is concrete.

I know that the reality of government is that privileges, no matter how small they may be, create injustice; that the size of government increases as the level of individual responsibility decreases; that those closest to the problem are best suited to solve the problem; and that political leaders are chosen to lead, not to follow.

Recently, there has been much talk regarding electoral reform and even a referendum. It must be clear to all of us here in this House that what is really needed is parliamentary reform.

When I look through the looking glass, I see that only 52% of the people still bother to vote and find value in this Legislature. I look forward to restoring the confidence of the other 48% and to giving them cause to participate in our democracy. We know that what we need is freedom, democracy and justice, not the nanny-state mentality so prevalent in today’s Liberal government thinking.

I want to reiterate the pride I feel for having been chosen by the people of my riding as their voice and as their representative in this Legislature. I look forward to the years ahead, working with my colleagues in making a more prosperous Ontario, a more effective Parliament, an Ontario that is full of honest and reasoned discussion and debate and where the Queen’s Park inscription in the hallways, “Where minds and souls find freedom,” resonates throughout Ontario.

I’d like to thank everyone and wish you all a very merry Christmas.