Harper accepts gift of fancy cowboy boots from Bush

[blueblood]

That was the exact CTV header.

The story further went on to say that there was no explanation for why gifts reported late and that the Privacy Act prevented asking. I don't believe the Act applies in this case.

Better late than never... I don't see Chretien or Martin man enough to own up to their gifts even though they were late. Lateness doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is they were owned up to.

[jdobbin]

Better late than never... I don't see Chretien or Martin man enough to own up to their gifts even though they were late. Lateness doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is they were owned up to.

From a partisan perspective where one supports the person who broke the protocol, I'm sure it might not seem like a big deal.

However, it was Harper who made a big deal about the timeliness of reports of gifts. Was he wrong to make a big deal of it? Do we give him a free pass for breaking the rules that he put in place?

[Topaz]

Gee, I can't believe no one has mention the king of gifts while PM...Mulroney!! He found a loophole and he had all his gifts turn over to his WIFE. They left richer, we (taxpayers) paid for more trips, hotels, only the best for these people, but hey he did gives us NAFTA!!

[blueblood]

Gee, I can't believe no one has mention the king of gifts while PM...Mulroney!! He found a loophole and he had all his gifts turn over to his WIFE. They left richer, we (taxpayers) paid for more trips, hotels, only the best for these people, but hey he did gives us NAFTA!!

NAFTA, which was for the betterment of all Canadians by making us a richer country.

[Shakeyhands]

Do we give him a free pass for breaking the rules that he put in place?

If they can look past the fixed election date, they sure as hell can get past what are most likely a really tacky pair of boots!

[capricorn]

However, it was Harper who made a big deal about the timeliness of reports of gifts. Was he wrong to make a big deal of it? Do we give him a free pass for breaking the rules that he put in place?

Do you have a citation where Harper made a big deal of changing the protocol fro reporting gifts?

[jdobbin]

Do you have a citation where Harper made a big deal of changing the protocol fro reporting gifts?

You have doubts that he did? He hammered the Liberals on issues of transparency and openess. He hammered them on sponsorship and gifts that they exchanged. Do you remember the golf ball think in Gomery? That was the issue of gift exchange in part.

I'll check to see what Harper said exactly. I certianly remember the speeches made in Parliament so it is likely in Hansard. Not that it matters really since even when confronted with things like Harper's words in Parliament, people still deny he meant sending troops to Iraq.

[betsy]

I think Harper clearly articulated the problem was when a head of government receives numerous gifts simply because he is the leader. There had been a growing number of occasions when leaders received expensive gifts and no protocol was in place to report them in a detailed or timely matter.

It amazes me that Conservatives brush aside any questions as to why it took so long to report gifts when they made a big deal of it. To go to the extent of hiding behind the Privacy Act strikes me as ridiculous for a public official who should expect disclosure. It also makes me question if there is anything else that is being reported late or being left off the list.

Did they look inside the boots? Since this came from Dubya, you never know. Maybe there's something hidden in those boots....like a treasure oil map in the north?

[capricorn]

You have doubts that he did?

You claimed that Harper made a big deal about the revised protocol for reporting gifts from foreign leaders. I don't recall that happening. A citation would be appreciated.

Not that it matters really since even when confronted with things like Harper's words in Parliament, people still deny he meant sending troops to Iraq.

Nice diversionary attempt.

[jdobbin]

You claimed that Harper made a big deal about the revised protocol for reporting gifts from foreign leaders. I don't recall that happening. A citation would be appreciated.

Harper claimed that the Conflict of Interest laws was his number 1 priority.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/members/login.p...mber/11/legpro/

The government trumpeted the legislation after several attempts to initiate it died on the order paper.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...s/prb0576-e.htm

The issue of gifts was a major one in the last election. Harper was going to forbid candidates and MPs from accepting large gifts from anyone.

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static...servatives.html

Harper has said that the issue of gifts led to corruption and made issue with it back in 2004.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:En8sRR...;cd=9&gl=ca

The list goes on an on but Harper has been saying gifts and the lack of protocol on them led to issues of corruption and ethical gray areas. The Conflict of Interest legislation was introduced to end that and Harper said it was his number 1 priority. Have you forgotten that?

Nice diversionary attempt.

So you don't deny that Harper meant to send troops to Iraq?

[jdobbin]

Did they look inside the boots? Since this came from Dubya, you never know. Maybe there's something hidden in those boots....like a treasure oil map in the north?

Harper broke a promise. Hyperpartisan Conservative supporters used to rake the Liberals over the coals on things like this. Different rules apply to people's favourite parties though.

[capricorn]

Harper claimed that the Conflict of Interest laws was his number 1 priority.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/members/login.p...mber/11/legpro/

This article requires registration and login to access it. Perhaps you should have quoted the portion relevant to your allegation that Harper made a big deal of the protocol to record gifts. This is what I would have done in support my allegations.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...s/prb0576-e.htm

This is a link to legislation, not Harper's words.

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static...servatives.html

This is a link to the entire 2006 Conservative platform. I looked through it and no mention is made of reporting gifts by the government, including the part on government accountability.

Harper has said that the issue of gifts led to corruption and made issue with it back in 2004.

You keep saying that. But where is your proof?

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:En8sRR...;cd=9&gl=ca

This is a link to the entire 2004 Conservative platform. It does not contain any statements made by Harper about reporting gifts.

The list goes on an on but Harper has been saying gifts and the lack of protocol on them led to issues of corruption and ethical gray areas.

Yes, I'm sure there is quite a list. The best you can do is provided links to an article that requires membership to login, large party platform documents and one piece of legislation. You have not convinced me that Harper "made a big deal" about the issue.

[jdobbin]

Yes, I'm sure there is quite a list. The best you can do is provided links to an article that requires membership to login, large party platform documents and one piece of legislation. You have not convinced me that Harper "made a big deal" about the issue.

The Conflict of Interest Act was Harper's number 1 platform in his own words. You don't think it was his number 1 even when it is listed as such on their website? I'd say that was a big deal.

Number 1 = big deal, don't you think?

This is what Harper said when he introduced the bill:

“Canadians elected this government to deliver on that commitment and today the Federal Accountability Act has received Royal Assent. From this day on, accountability in government is the law and we can all be proud of that fact.”

Part of that Federal Accountability Act was to introduce a new Conflict of Interest Act.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/media/nr-cp/2006/1212-eng.asp

A new Conflict of Interest Act.

As you'll note, Harper was pretty clear on gifts and the conflict surrounding them because it is outlined in the Act as already linked.

He appointed a commissioner as part of his number 1 priority to oversee this act. All of this he clearly did, clearly campaigned on in the last election (specifically mentioning gifts in the platform) and yet you think it was not really a big deal.

Edited October 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[scribblet]

No, it's about being able to say "harper" and "bush" in the same sentence wherever possible. That's basically all the Liberals got.

I predict that come next election, even if Obama gets in and Harper becomes is best friend in the whole world, next election the Liberals will still be desperately trying to say Harper and Bush in the same sentence.

I think you hit that nail on the head

[CrazeeEddie]

Yup, because nobody could possibly have a legitimate beef with Harper. Now other than the usual 'our screw ups arent important' bs, do you have anything to contradict what they are claiming? Otherwise, this seems like another excellent case of Harper and 'do as I say, not as I do'

I think you hit that nail on the head

[TCCK]

Oh no, I just got given a set of tickets to Hawaii, (for 2 weeks ith hotel, rental car for my wife and I), by one of the companies I buy product from. I better report this to the government right away so they can tax me on it because I own the company and I need to be punished for doing business with this other company and in the end employing hundred and hundreds of people Canada wide (Except Quebec).

Like anyone in Canada does that, and you want to point your finger at Harper and say "Shame on you for taking those boots and not reporting it."

If you claim absolutely EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING then you can point your finger at Harper for that but don't be a hypocrite no one has done that!!!