normanchateau

ALL parties deserve criticism for supporting the motion. The Green Party is off the hook.

Not in Vancouver.

Not to social conservatives.

So which gouging do you prefer?

Opacity is the new transparency in the New Government of Canada.

In the decima polls anyway...

Thanks for the link. Did you read page 2? Since there are provisons in place for people like her so they don't have to stand in line at all (no, it's not Harper's fault her family was vacationing in Australia) and if they do they can go to the front of the line, I really don't see what the big deal is about. Also, she could get her passport within 48 hours by paying an additional $70. That sounds reasonable. Read page 3 of the link and you'll see that they declined to expedite her application. I did read the entire story, including page 3. Her application was expedited. She was moved to the front of the line. Her friend asked if they could expedite it even further. Basically her friend was saying "Can't you do it any faster?" This is to what the manager replied, "No." Procedure does take some time. Pure media spin. This story could have been written very positive. A lady with terminal cancer didn't have to wait in line But she did have to wait in line. Even though the commissionaires became aware of her at 8:15 am, she didn't get out until 10:45 am.

Why? (1) He wasn't a personal friend and former campaign manager of the man who appointed him. (2) The people of Alberta wanted him.

Bert Brown, democratically elected...definitely a better choice than the unelected Michael Fortier.

May 6, 2007 Edmonton Sun Prime Minister Stephen Harper is perilously close to becoming the biggest political casualty the Canadian mission in Afghanistan has produced so far. The Afghan story changes by the minute. The chief soldier in charge of the mission declares that he will not be sidelined by the "theatrics" of questions about prisoner detainees. Rick Hillier claims his soldiers (but not himself) are "pissed off." His political bosses are absent from the file. Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is conveniently touring abroad, happily silenced along with embattled Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. Stockwell Day briefly emerged as the government point man. That might have been a good thing since he seems to be the only member of the troika that has his story straight some of the time. Instead, it is the prime minister himself who fields the questions and sends out missives of misinformation. What should have been a one-day wonder has escalated into the government's worst crisis with the prime minister's own hand at the helm. http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/05...157612-sun.html

Senate? You mean you're opposed to the Prime Minister appointing his unelected friend and former campaign manager to the Senate then making him a cabinet minister? Garth Turner was opposed and his punishment was being thrown out of the party.

Might explain the unprecendted attacks on May by CPC supporters on this thread.

Sun, May 6, 2007 By KATHLEEN HARRIS, NATIONAL BUREAU OTTAWA -- Nearly half of Canadians think the Conservative government is fumbling the war effort in Afghanistan and a majority want to bring the troops home if the death toll continues to mount. A new SES Research-Sun Media poll finds 54.6% of Canadians want a withdrawal if casualties climb, compared to 39.3% who see fallen soldiers as an unfortunate but necessary part of the mission. The difference of opinion is most stark with Conservative voters, who are much more likely than Liberal, NDP, Bloc Quebecois or Green supporters to accept blood in the war zone. But Nanos said it's not even a slam-dunk for committed Tories, since nearly 40% would call for a troop withdrawal if casualties continue. The poll also reveals a whopping 67% of Canadians believe Canada's presence in Afghanistan is actually making our country more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has consistently sold the mission as a way to bring democracy to Afghans while keeping the terrorist threat at bay, yet only 17.9% of Canadians believe our military might is cutting Canada's risk of an attack at home. http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/200...157643-sun.html

Do we ever!

No kidding? I had been expecting Jack and May to form some kind of left wing alliance. May left wing? She's an antiabortionist who has more in common with Harper than Dion.

Good observation, I know we've differed on other areas, but I agree with you here. I agree as well but that still doesn't explain why Harper said he'd lower the tax on gasoline.

How could this citizen have been more responsible? http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...1d0310f&k=66359 Thanks for the link. Did you read page 2? Since there are provisons in place for people like her so they don't have to stand in line at all (no, it's not Harper's fault her family was vacationing in Australia) and if they do they can go to the front of the line, I really don't see what the big deal is about. Also, she could get her passport within 48 hours by paying an additional $70. That sounds reasonable. Read page 3 of the link and you'll see that they declined to expedite her application.

You now blame Stephen Harper for bilingualism? And being anti-French? Neither. I blame him for hypocrisy.

And then remember the Sponsorship Scandal of the Liberals? At $250 million we're talking REAL money. Yes but isn't the point that Harper said his government would be open and public and that this sort of thing would not happen if we elected him. I wonder how long it will take before Harper supporters rationalize this by saying that ALL governments are corrupt.

I don't remember any specific amount....but yes, he did give some funding. What Canadian Prime Minister increased it by more than 12.8 billion? That increase is over 5 years and is "catch-up" money for a lot of neglect. Oh in that case it doesn't count at all. Paul Martin obviously deserves no credit for the much needed spending increase. Thanks for the clarification.

For a party which campaigned on a platform of government accountability, it's astonishing how rapidly they've transformed themselves into a party that blames their citizens instead of takes responsibility. As minister responsible for Passport Canada, you'd think Peter MacKay would be willing to take some responsibility. Citizens have to be responsible as well. How could this citizen have been more responsible? http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...1d0310f&k=66359

I doubt it but neither of us can prove it one way or the other. What can be said with far more certainty is that if Harper had been Prime Minister when the US invaded Iraq, today Canadian forces would be dying in Iraq. Evidence: "In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade." - Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003. "We support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win." - Stephen Harper supporting the US-lead war on Iraq, Montreal Gazette, April 2nd 2003. "Nay." - Conservative leader Stephen Harper voting against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq, March 20, 2003.

Yes they are. So what is the better strategy. Negotiating with them as President Karzai is now doing and has publicly acknowledged? Or torturing them?

Yeah, and much of it will come from those who know nothing about her and would have voted for a party called "None of the above."

Maybe I'm being naive. But according to that news, a lot of former members and officers of the hardline-Taliban regime had reconciled with the government. If I'm not mistaken, one of NATO's strategy is try to encourage insurgents to surrender voluntarily? Maybe Taliban members, being haters of anything representing the western world would rather talk with Karzai than any other officers of NATO. It is true that many Taliban, or ex-Taliban as Karzai refers to them, are now part of the Karzai government. But in addition to that, Karzai claims to be negotiating with Taliban hostile to his government: "President Hamid Karzai acknowledged for the first time Friday he has met with Taliban militants in attempts to bring peace to Afghanistan, which is struggling to quell a rising insurgency. In the past, Karzai has offered, without success, to hold talks with the fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar and renegade warlord Gulbudin Hekmatyar. Some officials in his government, including provincial governors, are thought to have held informal talks with militants in the south and east, but with little apparent success to calm the insurgency. "We have had representatives from the Taliban meeting with different bodies of Afghan government for a long time," Karzai told a news conference. "I have had some Taliban coming to speak to me as well." Karzai did not disclose any details of the meetings, when they took place or who attended."