Memorable Garth Turner quotes

[gerryhatrick]

Memorable Garth Turner quotes

The Canadian Press

Published: Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Conservative MP Garth Turner has been suspended from caucus for relating details of confidential meetings and criticizing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and others in the Tory government. Some comments from Turner’s blog, found on his website at www.garth.ca :

“Climate change is the greatest all-round threat this country faces, and … my nation’s government should not let us down with half-measures, a curtsy to junk science or a sell-out to the tar sands.” - Oct. 16.

snip

“Dissenting opinions have a very valid place within great parties. They show debate, the clash of ideas, an open-mindedness and an acceptance, even if grudging, of other points of view. Families fight. Couples squabble. Teams have issues. So, how believable is a caucus where every single member comes out of a room saying exactly the same thing?” - Feb. 20.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...31-a850eed93010

His comment on Global Warming 2 days ago was pretty courageous, and I don't doubt cost him his place in the party.

It was harsh, but true.

[B. Max]

He should have been kicked right out of the party for that nonsense. He's obviously a liberal.

[gerryhatrick]

Good grief, I'd say this has legs!

Check out this CTV story on it:

The blog musings of MP Garth Turner:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

[Canadian Blue]

Craig Oliver even said that Turner was basically begging to get kicked out of the party. I think the problem was more or less with leaking information about caucus meetings which are supposed to be out of the public eye.

[gc1765]

Craig Oliver even said that Turner was basically begging to get kicked out of the party. I think the problem was more or less with leaking information about caucus meetings which are supposed to be out of the public eye.

From the link above:

While Turner challenged people to find examples of him breaching caucus secrecy, conservative blogger Stephen Taylor found an example of a May 23 posting that Taylor says was later altered.

If Taylor is correct, the post was altered to soften a report about a briefing that Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice gave on settling aboriginal people with outstanding claims over abuse at residential schools. However, Taylor doesn't suggest when the post may have been altered.

So exactly what information was being leaked? Is the May 23 example the only example they could find? Why did it take until October for this to happen if the incident supposedly happened in May?

[jbg]

He should have been kicked right out of the party for that nonsense. He's obviously a liberal.

At best a Red Tory. But in some posters' eyes Harper can do no right, even if he crossed the aisle and became NDP.

[gerryhatrick]

More great stuff from http://www.garth.ca/weblog/ :

The stakes

posted by Garth Turner on 10.17.06 @ 11:48 pm | 80 Comments

The debate about whether global warming is a crock or a catastrophe will get steamier this week as the Harper Administration unveils its long-awaited green plan. I cannot tell you tonight exactly when that will be, but Rona Ambrose’s office told mine earlier today there will be a lock-up in advance of the release.

On the Hill, dudes, lock-ups are reserved for big news. snip

So, it’s coming. And today in Question Period two of the players in this enviro drama sat about fifty feet from each other, but directly in their mutual line of vision. On the floor of the House of Commons was Ambrose the environment minister, who the opposition pilloried for months, thinking she was an attractive Alberta lightweight they could trample. But Ambrose, so far at least, has stood her ground like a linebacker and gained a big following within the Conservative caucus.

Above her and looking on from the public gallery was Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party. Unlike the petite, angular, cool, brunette and impeccable Ambrose, May exudes an earth-motherliness punctuated by flying blonde hair, black glasses, an uninhibited laugh and lots of touching. It’s an interesting study in contrasts. Does it set the scene for conflict?

snip

A new green plan was not one of the government’s vaunted five priorities. It was not even a campaign promise, with the environment relegated to a trashing of Kyoto and a practical tax credit to get people on the train and the bus. But in politics a week’s a long time and eight months is almost a life. Now global warming is household stuff. An administration born of tax cuts and tough-love crime bills must react with conviction.

The next 48 hours will bring one of the most anticipated events of the political year - unveiling of a new green plan by Environment Minister Rona Ambrose. Will it attack climate change or come down more on the side of economic expansion and the oil sands? Will Tories be green enough for voters, who seem increasingly enviro-conscious?

Well, if we are not, there’s no shortage of political opponents set to swoop in and claim the environmental high ground. One is ELizabeth May, newly-elected leader of the Green Party. I spoke with her this afternoon outside the House of Commons.

http://www.garth.ca/weblog/

This guy is quite a writer.

[pdqnetworks]

on Garth's website he states

'Then I heard my seat in the House of Commons has been moved. Some media folks informed me that

not only was I banished to the Liberal side, but that a new seating plan had been printed'

I guess he will feel right at home now

BTW I found a bottle of Pierre Eh! water lsited on Ebay

Complete with the original Pierre Eh! Recipes including:

Bloody Prairie

Western Eggnog

Pierre Eh! On the rocks

Economy Punch

Alberta Cocktail

[scribblet]

According to the Ontario Caucus chairman, Gord Brown the decision was not taken lightly:

quote:

"Caucus confidentiality is an important thing for our caucus. It allows us the ability to discuss issues within the caucus and there had been breaches of caucus confidentiality."

Still, this is actually only a suspension, if Garth tries to keep a sock in it, he could get it you know how it oges - loose lips sinks ships.

[BubberMiley]

quote:

"Caucus confidentiality is an important thing for our caucus. It allows us the ability to discuss issues within the caucus and there had been breaches of caucus confidentiality."

Funny they can't come up with an example of such a breach, other than a questionable one from last May.

[cybercoma]

The greatest threat this country faces is liberal types over-reacting to climate change and causing irreparable damage to our GDP and industries.

[Figleaf]

... I think the problem was more or less with leaking information about caucus meetings which are supposed to be out of the public eye.

And yet when asked for specific examples of these confidentiality breaches Tory spokesmen could offer none.*

How unusual, eh? ... Tory politicians making accusations without any back up. Where have we heard that before?

(*today's Glob&Maul, p.A5.)

[MightyAC]

Craig Oliver even said that Turner was basically begging to get kicked out of the party. I think the problem was more or less with leaking information about caucus meetings which are supposed to be out of the public eye.

From the link above:

While Turner challenged people to find examples of him breaching caucus secrecy, conservative blogger Stephen Taylor found an example of a May 23 posting that Taylor says was later altered.

If Taylor is correct, the post was altered to soften a report about a briefing that Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice gave on settling aboriginal people with outstanding claims over abuse at residential schools. However, Taylor doesn't suggest when the post may have been altered.

So exactly what information was being leaked? Is the May 23 example the only example they could find? Why did it take until October for this to happen if the incident supposedly happened in May?

This is quote is from Garth's blog, Stephen Taylor has apologized and posted a clarification.

Stephen writes me: “I have included clarification to your concern. Please know that I

never said that you had edited recently to cover-up and that I didn’t

mean to imply that to anyone. My intent was not to scandalize any

cover-up of any sort.

My only concern was to demonstrate the the content in hand was

evidence of a breach of caucus confidentiality. I have provided the

extra context that you responded about a day later to change the post.

My concern wasn’t that you altered your words… just that you had

originally written them.

I had not considered the possible misinterpretation and I suppose when

one is on the ugly side of an event, one tends to read into things in

the most negative way (in a way that I did not consider). Again, I

have posted clarification. ”

– Garth