trex

Harper would do well to listen to this advice: Beware of a drowning man, lest he pull you under. And Mulrooney, is going D .O .W N . . .

Interesting how easy it is to do.

Mulroney talked to Tory cabinet minister on behalf of Quebecor Former prime minister Brian Mulroney talked to the current Conservative government on behalf of a company that could benefit from Ottawa's decision to open up the wireless industry to more competition, CBC News has learned. Mulroney played an active role in bringing together former industry minister Maxime Bernier and Pierre Karl Peladeau, CEO of Quebecor Media, CBC News has learned. Mulroney is on the board of directors for Quebecor Media. Sources say earlier this year, Mulroney asked Bernier to meet with Peladeau. The request was made during a conversation on a range of topics. Sources say they eventually met. On Wednesday, the Conservative government paved the way for new cellphone companies by announcing new rules for an auction of radio airwaves designed to spur competition in the wireless industry. Analysts expect Quebecor will be one of the companies to enter the auction. Under the Lobbyists Registration Act, Mulroney would be entitled to lobby elected officials in his role on the board of directors, provided he register as required. According to the registrar, he would be required to register for simply arranging a meeting between a minister and a CEO. But Mulroney is not a registered lobbyist. The registrar wrote about members of boards and their dealings with elected officials in an advisory issued in 2005, saying: "Registration would be required for…arranging a meeting." The Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists said it will review the matter to determine if an investigation should take place. Duff Conacher of the public ethics advocacy group Democracy Watch said that unregistered lobbying is a slippery slope. "Secret lobbying is a recipe for corruption, waste and abuse of the public interest," Conacher said. "The registrar should be investigating in terms of violation of the lobbyists code of conduct." ---------- Oh pool of vapid dross, which we now call parliament...

"CBC News has obtained a copy of an e-mail which appears to have been sent from Elmer MacKay's wife's address to Schreiber's wife in June of last year under the subject heading "proposed letter." The e-mail contains verbatim portions of the actual letter Schreiber did send to Mulroney about three weeks later. Schreiber said he sent the letter because MacKay suggested Mulroney might raise the issue of Schreiber's pending extradition with Harper. When approached at his Lorne, N.S., home, MacKay would not comment to CBC News about the e-mail." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/28/...ber-mackay.html --------- Mulroney, Harper, now Mackay. Then suddenly the whole house of cards caved in upon itself...

"Opposition politicians have questioned MacKay in recent days about his father's relationship with Schreiber, who testified before a House of Commons ethics committee on Thursday. He'll return for a second appearance next Tuesday. During question period Friday, MPs called on the defence minister to produce a letter Elmer MacKay faxed to Schreiber from MacKay's N.S. constituency office in 2006. "What was the subject and content of that letter?" Liberal MP Judy Sgro said Friday. "Will the minister table it before the House?" The incident caused a minor uproar in Parliament last year when it was revealed by the Bloc Québécois. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/071130/cana...ackay_associate

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/071130/cana...williams_harper Friday's hour-long meeting between Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams and Prime Minister Stephen Harper ended much as it had begun - cordially and without solutions, Williams said. "It's fair to say we agree to disagree on issues," Williams told a press conference following his first sit-down with the prime minister since a political spat arose between the two over the Atlantic Accord more than a year ago. "The original disagreement affected a promise that had been made, and that position has not changed," Williams said. "As a result, nothing is going to change here." That means Williams's threat to the federal government to mobilize an ABC - or "Anything But Conservative" position - still stands, the premier said. "ABC is still on...as long as the matters are unresolved between us and the government of Canada," he said. Williams is upset that the spring federal budget only allows Newfoundland to tap into a more generous equalization program if it gives up the accord, which protects the province's offshore revenues from equalization clawbacks until at least 2012. Williams said the province would lose $11 billion due to the changes and how they would affect the province's share of offshore oil revenues. Harper did not speak to reporters after the encounter. ---------------- Yet another "successful" agreement to disagree for Harper.

Why should you care?? Some of the rest of it is interesting, giving details of testimony and answering questions raised in recent discussions. Are you trying to stop me from posting here, while others go on ad banality about the silly meaning of words, bigotry etc of which many posts have nothing to do with politics, I don't see you trying to clean that act up. Get a real job.

They don't need to store the nucular waste, they've found a convenient way to get rid if it in places like Iraq and Afghanistan

Harper wanted Schreiber kicked out of Canada Powerful people in Ottawa are intent on kicking Karlheinz Schreiber out of Canada and are manoeuvring to derail any public inquiry into his business dealings with former prime minister Brian Mulroney, the lawyer for the controversial arms lobbyist said Friday. Edward Greenspan, after winning his client a stay of extradition that will allow him to tell the rest of his story to a House of Commons ethics committee, suggested Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself is among those keen to see Schreiber leave Canadian soil. "I think there are people in Ottawa who are in power who would like to get rid of him," Greenspan said outside the Ontario Court of Appeal. "It seems to me that the prime minister . . . although he's called for it and although former prime minister Brian Mulroney wants a public inquiry, the minister of justice has done everything in his power to get Mr. Schreiber out of here before that inquiry," he said. "Strikes me as a concerted effort to make sure that they look like they want a public inquiry. What they really want is Mr. Schreiber out of here." Schreiber's testimony Thursday contradicted claims by Mulroney that the agreement was made after he left office and that it was for assistance with a pasta business and other services. The German-Canadian businessman said he made the deal on June 23, 1993, at the prime minister's retreat at Harrington Lake - just two days before Mulroney stepped down as prime minister. The timing of the deal is key because if it happened while Mulroney was in office, the former prime minister could face legal repercussions. He said Mulroney was supposed to help facilitate the Bear Head project - a failed plan to build light-armoured vehicles in Nova Scotia. He said his friendship with Mulroney ended in 1995 when he saw a letter from Mulroney's former chief of staff that the ex-PM had dropped the Bear Head project. Schreiber said the decade-old betrayal was repeated last year when Mulroney double-crossed him over a promise to ask Prime Minister Harper to help him stay in Canada. He said Mulroney assured him in July 2006 that he would take a letter to Harper that month asking for assistance. Mulroney allegedly told him afterward that he had met with Harper at Harrington Lake and that "the message was very well received." Schreiber said he was told that after his case had worked its way through the Supreme Court, then-justice minister Vic Toews "would look into it and do the right thing." In return, Schreiber was supposed to sign a letter stating that his business relationship with Mulroney had been above board. Schreiber is to appear before the committee again Tuesday. He will be held in jail until then but will be allowed access to his home in Ottawa's Tony Rockcliffe neighbourhood and wherever else he may need to visit to retrieve necessary documents. --------- Upstarts and Rogues. and charlatans, don't forget about the charlatans

They dropped the word "progressive" from their name.

If you read my two posts here you'll clearly see what I mean, that with a third world economy, with millions of crappy cars and factories blowing crap into the air, that is how they can produce the cheapest goods for us to fill our Wally-World with. No restrictions, no regs, no safeties to jack up the cost of goods. Inferior, even dangerous chemicals. They look at us and see how we have built ourselves up over the past 50 years, and they're saying, now it's OUR turn to build. Since we've already done the "dirty work" to build our technological society, what would prompt them to take the cuts and slow down? They want some too. Probably, if you accumulated the pollution and CO2 output of our western nations since the industrial revolution, we take the cake hands down in terms of what's been done to the atmosphere. Now today the problem is, the chinese are wanting to do the same thing, on a large scale and in a short time, which has everybody worried about the environment. Sounds like hypocracy. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be required to participate, but that the WAY they participate is different than the way we could. This problem is recognized in Kyoto, it's not the way it was intended to go about. Of course, since Harper rejects Kyoto we see what we have now. Harpers insistence that they have to go first before he even makes a move is idealistic and one-sided. Him speak with forked tongue.

There is no over-population problem in Canada. Actually the opposite. So no need to jump up and down about the need to limit families, although in China they do have such policies, only one child per family is allowed. I have no idea what the penalty is if you have more than one. But I read somewhere that since they know they can have only one, everybody wants boys (presumably to continue the family name or some such nonsense) and the result is that baby girls are often aborted or sold off. Human meat-market. Is that what you really want??

The CPC is the only party that wants to allow this change. The others oppose it. How is that not a partisan issue? And what they say changes, depending on who you want to quote, and when they said it. Forget what they say, it's obvious the way they're handling things they can't really be trusted. Their actions speak louder than words.

What else can you expect with people like Don Cherry promoting such violence in his brand of "rock 'em sock 'em" Hockey. As a player myself it makes me sick to watch when they start fighting on tv. The refs stand back and allow it. You can tell its premeditated, a part of the so-called "entertainment".

Just heard on the news that Quebec is sending its own delegation to the upcoming meeting in Bali, to show that they disagree with the Harper government on climate change. Also- "BQ Leader Gilles Duceppe reportedly wrote a letter to Indonesia's president, appealing to him not to listen to what the Tory government has to say." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...71126/20071126/

Good luck! Hope you will make it

Yes Wild Bill, you could say that I care about all of humanity in general. Don't you?

As you do unto others, so will it be done unto you.

These places are run by union goons. Most unionized workers are too demoralized to give a damn. If it ain't in the contract I don't have to do anything. Let the people rot. For this lack of personal committment to their job a man ultimately lost his life. All it would take is for someone to walk through the area and loudly call out his name in order to find him. Those responsible at the airport should be dismissed, or, jailed.

So is that the end of his legal fight? Is there no recourse, an investigation to determine the who, why and how he was put in jail while innocent... I wouldn't let it rest. If it were me in his shoes, I'd dedicate the rest of my life to fighting it, sue those who are responsible. But not just for the money, for the suffereing and humiliation. I'd go after them all, the cops, the crown, judges, witnesses. I hope he got some kind of payout in compensation?

Army Guy, I feel your pain. I understand what you're saying, it is injustice. The avaerage "Joe" is politically complacent, satisfies with simple things in life. A bottle of beer, a hockey game. The war is just another story in the papers. As long as the belly is full and we are thoroughly entertained, most could not care less about real news and politics. There is also a culture, especially seen in US news and other media, that if you are anti-war and speak out about it, if you display your opposition to the war you are un-patriotic. Villified, even in some places. The anti-war movement is castrated by media propaganda that says, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". So its another reason there is no outcry against the politicians, who daily reassure us that everything is going well and all is taken care of. The message, Don't worry about it, leave this to us. And remember to buy. Buy and be happy. I am disappointed to hear about the problems with equipment, sounds like they want a war fought on the cheap. Same thing was happening in the US with the lack of armor on the cars, and we heard about troops improvising by adding plate steel and whatever junk they could find laying around. These politicians are a bunch of rich punks. They have no concept of what is necessary, they don't need to face the question of survival in a hostile foreign land and they never will. Born with a silver spoon in their mouth and they now are in charge, making decisions for me and you. Guy Fawkes... you were an idiot

Technically any country that has a surplus in credits (by exceeding their target reductions) can sell the extra on the market. The idea was to make carbon reductions a profitable industry. But such reduction is unlikely to happen in India or China, hence the reason they themselves don't want to buy in. And any new technology to aid in lowering emmissions likely would not be coming from there. It would make sense for us to go it alone without them, we can develop and sell the technology to big polluters.

Kyoto as I understod it was an economic model to encourage development of new green technology. The idea was that industrialized nations could help third world countries who are in the process of modernizing themselves, like India and China whom we know are demanding huge amounts of hydrocarbons to fuel their industries. They have so many people, and the shittiest cars that blow so much smog it can be seen from outer space. This is where the carbon credits idea comes in, that a country which cannot reduce its own emmissions can buy carbon credits from another more modernized country, who in exchange develops new technology to help them reduce their carbon output. The point was never that India and China has to "go first", they simply can't. And considering that we, over many decades have nicely helped outselves to the oil to build our fine nations and standard of living, they won't deny themselves. They feel they have a right to do the same infrasturcture building. That just makes it all the more important for us to show leadership.

I don't think its entirely clear to some posters here recently, who seem to question whether global warming is even really taking place. So, just a gentle reminder to any "global warming deniers" lurking out there... Its real. About the second point, are we the cause, none can say for sure. But even if not, if this is a naturally occuring event thats happened before, it doesn't mean that all is well and we can just go back to work and party on. Its never happened before, to US. Our high tech society is vulnerable. And to those who think it will be good for Canada, the thousands living along lowland coastal areas (where the majority of human populations tend to live) may not agree. Manhattan is not much like Venice, yet.

Interestingly it may be, if you try to really understand the mind of conservative funamentalists. They see freedom to make any choice you want, as a fatal step towards western liberalism. To obey Allah is to willingly restrict yourself from certain freedoms, its as simple as that. Islam has been there for a long time, far as I know. Islam was strictly followed before the taliban came. So who are they really in the grand scheme of things in Afghanistan? I suspect that the difference in attitude towards freedoms between groups like taliban and others, the mujahideens, or the mullahs, is not that great. And if thats true, the taliban and their attitude ARE the people of Afghanistan.