Harper Links Liberal to Air India

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

It is getting pretty brutal.

This type of behaviour eventually whips around and turns on the people who use it.

[geoffrey]

The MP in question is linked to Air India, and his independance must be questioned when he opposes the bill that would have his father-in-law testify before the inquiry.

If those measures aren't renewed, ol' father-in-law doesn't have to do anything.

The MP is in a conflict of interest in my opinion, Harper is right to raise that concern.

[Topaz]

Harper used the Vancouver Sun to do his dirty work for him. His excuse would be, I didn't say this the Sun did. It's just like he did to Goodale over the income trust just before the election. He wanted to leave the impression that Goodale and the Libs were up to no good again, which isn't and wasn't the case. I find Harper over and over again not to be the "Right Honourable PM" and I can't seeing the the old PC'ers doing what Harper does. Perhaps the Liberals should use fire with fire. They should go find out who exactly who is his relatives that are in the oil drilling business, perhaps its his wife's. Is there a conflict of interest here???

[guyser]

I find Harper over and over again not to be the "Right Honourable PM" and I can't seeing the the old PC'ers doing what Harper does. Perhaps the Liberals should use fire with fire. They should go find out who exactly who is his relatives that are in the oil drilling business, perhaps its his wife's. Is there a conflict of interest here???

I am not a fan of Harpers , but in all reality I have virtually no problem with what he has done as PM. But this is downright childish as is his thumbing of the nose at Goodale . He better be careful his wife or kids dont do wrong, people could have a field day with that.

He could have brought the issue up in private , but to denigrate , or rather to embarass the sitting MP is childish.

And those dumb attack ads , now?...in the middle of nothing? Call an election , then set off the ads , but now?

Perhaps his true colours & childish antics are being seen

[Canadian Blue]

I have a feeling that the next election campaign will be a nasty one, on both sides.

[jdobbin]

The MP in question is linked to Air India, and his independance must be questioned when he opposes the bill that would have his father-in-law testify before the inquiry.

If those measures aren't renewed, ol' father-in-law doesn't have to do anything.

The MP is in a conflict of interest in my opinion, Harper is right to raise that concern.

The prime minister appeared to be linking the MP to terrorism in my opinion.

[Catchme]

It is more than crass partisanship, it wad an outrageous lie and an attempt to deflect away from Harper's stacking of the judiciary that was being discussed prior to Harper's disengenuous play. What an evil man he is.

Outside the Commons, the prime minister's comments drew wide condemnation from all opposition parties.

"Mr. Harper's actions today are the worst kind of gutter politics that I have seen in nearly 20 years in this House," Liberal MP Ralph Goodale said.

"What the prime minister did was wrong," NDP MP Nathan Cullen told the CBC's Don Newman Tuesday after question period. "It was absolutely embarrassing."

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said the comments showed "a serious lack of dignity" by Harper and suggested the prime minister has dropped efforts to appear as a moderate during the last election.

"He changed a bit but he's coming back to his original nature," Duceppe told reporters. "He believes he's never wrong."

Not only that there was never an issue about the father in law tesifying, ever, he has already spoken to the RCMP even long ago about what he knew.

Bains's father-in-law told the RCMP he had met a man who was later convicted of shooting a potential witness in the Air India trial.

That Harper would use this ploy to try and discredit the Liberals for refusing to support the extention the anti-terrorism clauses that have sunset, by inferring it would benefit an Lib MP's extended family, is not only gutter politics but it is a fine example of deluded behaviour.

1. Baines father in law is willingly testifying, there is no prompt needed.

2. Nothing in the sunset clauses would actually compell people in the Air India trial to testify.

3. The sunset clauses are pro-active, not retroactive tools that are redundant and unecessary as the Criminal Code already covers it, and do not hold up to the Charter litmus, which it was argued prior to them even being included, that was why they were sun setted.

4. Harper feels he has the right to use props, aka clipping, when it is against parliamentary proceedure.

5. Harper feels he has a right to use gimicks to deflect away from his stacking of the judiciary, as he does not want Canadians at large to know what he is doing and why it is wrong.

6. Harper feels he has a right to turn the HoC into a gong show mockery and shameful a sham.

7. No rational person would ever believe the Liberal Party, as well as all the other opposition parties, would get rid of a redundant and human rights breaking temporary measure, so that an MP's father law would not have to testify. Particularily when, it is a well known fact, that the father in law in question, has been fully up front with speaking to the RCMP about what he knows and is willingly testifying.

8. Harper's over blown sense of self is fool hardy and lacks character and judgement meaning that he cannot see that his actions were wrong, and this shows great delusion.

[Jean_Poutine]

What's childish is heckling and shouting when someone is trying to speak. I don't care WHO it is speaking or WHAT they are saying. When it is their turn to speak, I want to hear them NOT hecklers, and then the opposition can have their turn to respond after. I remember when that happened to Jack Layton when he was trying to talk about missile defense, and I found it equally annoying that he had problems speaking. I like a lively debate, but there should be a house rule that hecklers be removed if they don't stop when a call for order is made so that people can speak, and allowed to return when they can abide by that rule or when the person is done speaking.

[jdobbin]

What's childish is heckling and shouting when someone is trying to speak. I don't care WHO it is speaking or WHAT they are saying. When it is their turn to speak, I want to hear them NOT hecklers, and then the opposition can have their turn to respond after. I remember when that happened to Jack Layton when he was trying to talk about missile defense, and I found it equally annoying that he had problems speaking. I like a lively debate, but there should be a house rule that hecklers be removed if they don't stop when a call for order is made so that people can speak, and allowed to return when they can abide by that rule or when the person is done speaking.

Heckling has been around since the beginning of Parliament.

There are rules against excessive behaviour just as there are rules for using props and the prime minister did today.

[Argus]

Harper used the Vancouver Sun to do his dirty work for him. His excuse would be, I didn't say this the Sun did. It's just like he did to Goodale over the income trust just before the election. He wanted to leave the impression that Goodale and the Libs were up to no good again, which isn't and wasn't the case. I find Harper over and over again not to be the "Right Honourable PM" and I can't seeing the the old PC'ers doing what Harper does. Perhaps the Liberals should use fire with fire. They should go find out who exactly who is his relatives that are in the oil drilling business, perhaps its his wife's. Is there a conflict of interest here???

The Liberals climbed into the gutter nearly twenty years ago, and since then have been steadily and I might say gleefully tunneling down year after year. They are a party which heaps mud and muck and sleaze onto all opponents every election, and not one of you ever had a problem with any of that. Your self righteous whining now is nothing more than amusing, if typical hypocrisy.

[madmax]

What's childish is heckling and shouting when someone is trying to speak. I don't care WHO it is speaking or WHAT they are saying. When it is their turn to speak, I want to hear them NOT hecklers, and then the opposition can have their turn to respond after.

Preston Manning really wanted an active parliment with lively debate.

I recall Ed Broadbent being very disillusioned when he returned regarding how much parliment had degenerated into name calling and heckling . MPs have been talking about "decorum" and quite frankly, the posters on this forum (good, bad and ugly) have shown better debating and decorum then our parlimentary elected officials.

I enjoy watching Tony Blair in action.

[na85]

From the transcript, it doesn't look to me like the discussion was even remotely heading towards the Air India investigation. That, coupled with the fact that PM Harper brought the newspaper clipping in with him to Parliament, leads me to believe that he was deliberately looking for an opportunity to smear Bains.

Seems like childish tactics to me, it's the same sort of thing you get in Tory-bashing arguments; people just throw up "Harper has a hidden agenda!!1" as a smokescreen to thwart any rebuttals.

[Catchme]

The MP in question is linked to Air India, and his independance must be questioned when he opposes the bill that would have his father-in-law testify before the inquiry.

If those measures aren't renewed, ol' father-in-law doesn't have to do anything.

The MP is in a conflict of interest in my opinion, Harper is right to raise that concern.

The prime minister appeared to be linking the MP to terrorism in my opinion.

Jdobbin, you are correct Harper was inferring that the MP might be linked to terrorism, but by extension he was also erroneously inferring that the Liberals were as well, or indeed any opposition party member who supported the removal of the temporary measures were as well.

[guyser]

The Liberals climbed into the gutter nearly twenty years ago, and since then have been steadily and I might say gleefully tunneling down year after year. They are a party which heaps mud and muck and sleaze onto all opponents every election, and not one of you ever had a problem with any of that. Your self righteous whining now is nothing more than amusing, if typical hypocrisy.

So you admit Conservatives are slimey?

What you fail to grasp is that there isn't an election on now. I doubt many would be that upset if this was done during an election.

However Harper bringing in materials to slag a sitting MP, and his refusal to back off on Goodale only means the Liberals will uncover Harper lower in the tunnel.

[Jean_Poutine]

The prime minister appeared to be linking the MP to terrorism in my opinion.

Perhaps, what the Prime Minister was trying to say would be clearer if the Liberals weren't so busy trying to drown it out. Even if you disagree with someone emphatically, it's best to let them speak if for no other reason than to understand their position. Then, if you disagree, you can rebut it more effectively.

[noahbody]

The prime minister appeared to be linking the MP to terrorism in my opinion.

Perhaps, what the Prime Minister was trying to say would be clearer if the Liberals weren't so busy trying to drown it out. Even if you disagree with someone emphatically, it's best to let them speak if for no other reason than to understand their position. Then, if you disagree, you can rebut it more effectively.

Exactly. Harper didn't say anything. Then afterwards the libs told Mike Duffy what he was going to say. And people are mad at Harper.

I would personally vote to keep the measures. How would the people bashing Harper over nothing vote if they were an MP?

[jdobbin]

Perhaps, what the Prime Minister was trying to say would be clearer if the Liberals weren't so busy trying to drown it out. Even if you disagree with someone emphatically, it's best to let them speak if for no other reason than to understand their position. Then, if you disagree, you can rebut it more effectively.

As I have pointed out, Parliament has always been a forum that has had heckling. The Speaker can rule out of order or expel boisterous members just as he or she can toss out a member (like the prime minister) who uses props.

[Jean_Poutine]

I enjoy watching Tony Blair in action.

Yeah, regardless of what people think of his politics, Tony is a good speaker, and I enjoy watching him too.

[Jean_Poutine]

Perhaps, what the Prime Minister was trying to say would be clearer if the Liberals weren't so busy trying to drown it out. Even if you disagree with someone emphatically, it's best to let them speak if for no other reason than to understand their position. Then, if you disagree, you can rebut it more effectively.

As I have pointed out, Parliament has always been a forum that has had heckling. The Speaker can rule out of order or expel boisterous members just as he or she can toss out a member (like the prime minister) who uses props.

The Senate has been appointed for a long time too, but that doesn't mean that there's not a better way of doing things.

The Speaker called for order a couple times and the Liberals just ignored it; therefore, it's pointless unless enforced.

[jdobbin]

The Speaker called for order a couple times and the Liberals just ignored it; therefore, it's pointless unless enforced.

The Liberals are not the only ones doing the heckling. Listen to Question Period and you will hear all parties.

If you are just upset at Liberals for doing it, I question what this argument is all about.

As far as the Senate goes, I favour abolishing it rather than further mucking up the works.

[Jean_Poutine]

The Speaker called for order a couple times and the Liberals just ignored it; therefore, it's pointless unless enforced.

The Liberals are not the only ones doing the heckling. Listen to Question Period and you will it hear all parties.

If you are just upset at Liberals for doing it, I question what this argument is all about.

As far as the Senate goes, I favour abolishing it rather than further mucking up the works.

Pardon me, the opposition. The Liberals are the main opposition party, but it's not a partisan issue as I've already said I was annoyed when it happened to Jack Layton too.

[Figleaf]

:angry:

Sleazy Stevey, at it again.

[geoffrey]

Jdobbin, you are correct Harper was inferring that the MP might be linked to terrorism, but by extension he was also erroneously inferring that the Liberals were as well, or indeed any opposition party member who supported the removal of the temporary measures were as well.

Do you really not trust the Liberals that much? I didn't draw that conclusion and I wouldn't trust them with a penny.

[August1991]

Offhand, I'd say that this has been a very productive day for the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper PC, MP.

First, he managed to twist the knife in a glaring wound on the Liberal caucus. The entire Liberal front bench voted in favour of these two security measures and now Dion can only get support by threatening not to sign nomination papers. Talk about divide and rule.

Second, for most voters who don't pay attention to details, they saw the Liberal caucus screaming like a horde of drunken hyenas. Hardly a government in waiting.

[Canadian Blue]

Where are all the cries about dictatorial leadership from Dion now. Politic's as usual, if anybody else does it that doesn't carry the party label criticize.