CP: Klein tells PM Harper to lighten up with media

[Ricki Bobbi]

1i) And the reason we like to compare, is because the Liberal government was the only government for the past 14 years. They carry a lot of baggage with them.

And we want to make sure those with short memories don't forget the corruption of the Liberals...

[Cameron]

1i) And the reason we like to compare, is because the Liberal government was the only government for the past 14 years. They carry a lot of baggage with them.

And we want to make sure those with short memories don't forget the corruption of the Liberals...

Very true.

And for those pundits that will come out of the wood work now that we've talked about corruption. Please prove that Mulroney was corrupt.

(Ya gotta get the jump on them Ricki)

[normanchateau]

Tell me how they caved in. I will go back to my point about income trusts. Show me you are qualified to make comments on the deal and I will discuss them with you.

How they caved? The US lumber lobby got to keep a significant portion of the illegal duties and today the Canadian softwood lumber industry pays a 15% export tax which is even higher than the 10.8% illegal duties imposed by the U.S. Harper betrayed both free trade and the softwood lumber industry. In the next election, he will lose even more BC seats than he lost in January, 2006.

[Cameron]

[...]but the most recent conflict boiled over in May 2002, when the United States imposed duties of 27 per cent on Canadian softwood lumber, arguing that Canada unfairly subsidized producers of spruce, pine and fir lumber.

Canada's protracted dispute with the U.S. over softwood lumber finally ended in April 2006 with an agreement that would require the U.S. to return about 80 per cent of the more than $5 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports.

The deal removes tariffs on lumber, but includes export taxes that kick in if the price of lumber drops. Producers would have to pay an export tax between five per cent and 15 per cent depending on the price reduction.

Source Article

Thanks for the info Norman.

[Cameron]

On top of that Normie, if the deal was "so bad", why did the Provinces sign on...hmmm....

[Ricki Bobbi]

On top of that Normie, if the deal was "so bad", why did the Provinces sign on...hmmm....

The deal was, and still is. the best thing for the country.

[bk59]

And that is your basis for all that is bad about Conservatives. It's weak.

1) Until you show me your qualification on Income Trusts and the recent changes, you nor I have the authority to make a decision on weather it was a bad more or good move.

2) Arming border guards is not something that should be looked at as a waste of money. We have police that are armed, so it should be a reasonable assumption that the people that protect our borders should be armed as well. And I don't know what this "Protect us for America" bit was about, but it sounds typical of the standard liberal generalization about America. Arming border guards is about them being able to protect themselves if they encounter someone who is threatening. Also to add to this point, what good are border guards if they walk away from their posts when they are threatened.

3)The unconstitutional move on SSM started with Paul Martin when he whipped his cabinet to vote on the side of the government. I see NO objection to bringing it back to the house for a vote. I will accept what the outcome is either way.

4) Tell me how they caved in. I will go back to my point about income trusts. Show me you are qualified to make comments on the deal and I will discuss them with you.

5) The floor crossing by Emerson. Yes, a shot in the foot. It wasn't in good taste. But it was different than Belinda's departure.

6) Afghanistan is a NATO run mission. Canada has a limited role in guiding the troops. Should we have a clear plan outlined by OUR government, yes, and I hope that plan come to light in the coming months. But so far I like the way things are progressing in Afghanistan. The mission security that our troops are trying to provide is an important piece to rebuilding Afghanistan.

7) I haven't heard about the Senator issue. If you can provide a link, it would be much appreciated.

1i) And the reason we like to compare, is because the Liberal government was the only government for the past 14 years. They carry a lot of baggage with them.

Some random thoughts...

1) The recent changes to income trusts are probably in the best interest of the country. That being said, since someone mentioned short memories (or maybe selective is a better phrase), it's worth noting that I think all those who continue to whine that Chretien did not get rid of the GST when he was elected PM need to choose:

A) Take the rational approach and realize that circumstances change. Sometimes when you get to power you realize that an election promise you made just can't work.

Go with the crazy approach and figure that nothing ever changes in this world and all promises must be kept no matter the consequences.

Either way, Harper and Chretien both made promises that they broke. I will give Harper a nod though and say that I think he did a better job explaining his reasons for the change in attitude.

2) Assuming proper training is provided and that the cost doesn't balloon out of control then arming border guards, especially when that is what they were requesting, seems the right thing to do.

3) The PM telling his Cabinet how to vote is not unconstitutional. They are members of the party. Specifically, high ranking members. If they don't like it they can leave. I know that seems harsh, but that's the party system. What is unconstitutional would be trying to deny same-sex marriage since this has been ruled on by the Supreme Court. In my mind there is no point in trying to re-open this debate. The options are really simple: leave things as they are, amend the constitution, or pass laws every few years that use the notwithstanding clause to ban same-sex marriage. Personally I think it's in the country's best interest to not try those last two alternatives.

4) I won't comment on this one since I don't know enough about the deal the Conservatives got and I don't know enough about what was on the table when the Liberals tried to settle this.

5) You're right, Emerson's crossing was different than Stronach's crossing. It was much worse. Here's a guy who literally switched to the Conservative party just days after running for the Liberal party. He didn't sit even for a second as a member of the Opposition. It's as if the Conservatives had two candidates running in that riding and the Liberal's had no one.

6) I do wish the Conservative government, just like the Liberal government before them, could show a more comprehensive plan for our role in Afghanistan. I don't need, or want, to know everything, but surely there is room for a few more details - not just about the role of our troops, but also how Canada is participating in all of the other areas necessary for Afghanistan to stand on its own. As for the talk from some people about pulling them out immediately with no thought to the consequences... let's just say, I like crazy, but not in my politicians. Just pulling them out is like give a big FU to Afghanistan and our allies there. Not a good idea.

As for the Conservatives always attacking the Liberals with "were they any better", etc. I just wish they would tone done the rhetoric. Defend your policies and don't bother with the partisan crap. And that goes for the other parties as well. They are all equally guilty of using insults when they should be using reason to justify their positions or reasonably discussing their opponents' positions. I have no patience for anyone who spouts garbage like "All Conservatives are red necks out to destroy all social programs and force Christianity down your throat" or "All Liberals are corrupt scumbags who are right now stealing money from your wallet while they talk about how they deserve to be in power". While I have no doubt that both parties have a few members who might come close to those characterisations, neither view is representative of the two parties as a whole.

[normanchateau]

On top of that Normie, if the deal was "so bad", why did the Provinces sign on...hmmm....

The provinces signed on because of extraordinary political pressure from the federal government. Why are lumber companies still bitterly opposed to the deal? You might want to read the following and find out for yourself:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/10/13/Softwood/

As you'll see in that article, some small family-operated lumber companies were barely breaking even when they had to pay the 10.8% in duties to the US. But now they're actually losing money as a result of the 15% export tax which goes to Ottawa. I suppose they could just shut down, declare bankruptcy and layoff their employees. Is that what Harper wants? Did he anticipate this or was it just incompetence?

In the end, this Harper-initiated agreement will do far more harm to the lumber industry than keeping the illegal US duties in place would have. In many ways, the Harper softwood deal has done to lumber companies what the NEP did to Alberta.

Like most investors in softwood lumber industries, I could not possibly envision that a Harper government would slap a tax on a Canadian industry that was an even higher percentage than the illegal US duty had been. Emerson and Harper...dumb and dumber.

[Cameron]

So Normie, what would you have done? The Liberals couldn't close the deal, a NAFTA panel ruled in favour of Canada....would you have sent troops down to the US to reinforce the ruling? How would you deal with an American giant that wasn't about to budge....

I think the deal we got is better than what we had.

[Ricki Bobbi]

On top of that Normie, if the deal was "so bad", why did the Provinces sign on...hmmm....

The provinces signed on because of extraordinary political pressure from the federal government. Why are lumber companies still bitterly opposed to the deal? You might want to read the following and find out for yourself:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/10/13/Softwood/

What was this 'extraordinary political pressure' from the Federal Government?

It was a Government explaining its position and why it wanted support for an international agreement it had reached. Nothing extraordinary about that.

[normanchateau]

So Normie, what would you have done? The Liberals couldn't close the deal, a NAFTA panel ruled in favour of Canada....would you have sent troops down to the US to reinforce the ruling? How would you deal with an American giant that wasn't about to budge....

I think the deal we got is better than what we had.

The lumber companies wanted to pursue litigation which eventually ruled in their favour. That's what Canada should have done. Harper imposed a deal which was worse than what the lumber companies suffered at the hands of the US. There's a reason why Emerson opposed the deal when he was a Liberal.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The lumber companies wanted to pursue litigation which eventually ruled in their favour. That's what Canada should have done. Harper imposed a deal which was worse than what the lumber companies suffered at the hands of the US. There's a reason why Emerson opposed the deal when he was a Liberal.

So no evidence or support to backup this claim of 'extraordinary' political pressure.

The provinces agreed, industry agreed.

[compugal33]

Klien is absolutely right.. Harper is really the stoggiest PM, we have ever had. I think he is afraid of his shadow. After campaigning and winning with his false smile and false promises of a " more open" government.. Harper has gone to great pains to shut out the media and the people. Of course I can see why.. he does not want to hear all the critisism as he starts breaking promises.. He will be gone very soon.

[Cameron]

Klien is absolutely right.. Harper is really the stoggiest PM, we have ever had. I think he is afraid of his shadow. After campaigning and winning with his false smile and false promises of a " more open" government.. Harper has gone to great pains to shut out the media and the people. Of course I can see why.. he does not want to hear all the critisism as he starts breaking promises.. He will be gone very soon.

Yea.....ok.

And who are you going to put in place, the leaderless Liberals with their sting of broken promises? Okiee....

[Figleaf]

Hey CPCers: here's an idea! If y'all object so much to gerry's anti-Harper threads, try not responding to them instead of stalking him or storming every thread he starts. Jesus.

Right on.

Figleaf you are cheering somebody on about not stalking people?

Would you like me to post a link to the seven straight threads you stalked me on in a one hour span yesterday?

Do you really want to re-initiate an exchange with me? You lost pretty badly last time.

[normanchateau]

Klien is absolutely right.. Harper is really the stoggiest PM, we have ever had. I think he is afraid of his shadow. After campaigning and winning with his false smile and false promises of a " more open" government.. Harper has gone to great pains to shut out the media and the people. Of course I can see why.. he does not want to hear all the critisism as he starts breaking promises.. He will be gone very soon.

Yea.....ok.

And who are you going to put in place, the leaderless Liberals with their sting of broken promises? Okiee....

I'm guessing the Liberal delegates won't pick a leader who has a history of breaking promises. The Conservatives are now stuck until the next election with a so-con leader who breaks promises.

[Figleaf]

And that is your basis for all that is bad about Conservatives. It's weak.

1) Until you show me your qualification on Income Trusts and the recent changes, you nor I have the authority to make a decision on weather it was a bad more or good move.

Qualification? I tought you purported to be interested in discussion rather than merely (mistaken) efforts to belittle the people behind comments.

The decision on income trusts was bad because:

-it went back on a promise that people had relied on and resulted in financial damages to them;

-it will undermine confidence in the reliability of our capital markets; and

-was not urgent, give our fiscal surpluses.

2) Arming border guards is not something that should be looked at as a waste of money. We have police that are armed, so it should be a reasonable assumption that the people that protect our borders should be armed as well. And I don't know what this "Protect us for America" bit was about, but it sounds typical of the standard liberal generalization about America. Arming border guards is about them being able to protect themselves if they encounter someone who is threatening. Also to add to this point, what good are border guards if they walk away from their posts when they are threatened.

??? Cameron, you should be very careful when you put quotes around something. I think I said 'FROM' America. Arming border guards is going to cost ten times what the tories originally said. And for what? Where is the threat? Why do we need to be protected from people crossing from the United States?

3)The unconstitutional move on SSM started with Paul Martin when he whipped his cabinet to vote on the side of the government. I see NO objection to bringing it back to the house for a vote. I will accept what the outcome is either way.

Well, my dear fellow, you've made a lot of mistakes there.

(1) Nothing Paul Martin did around SSM has been unconstitutional, and it is certainly not unconstitutional to have whipped votes in Parliament. I'd recommend that if you don't really grasp what is constitutional and not, that you avoid assertions on the topic.

(2) It was not a whipped vote. It was a free vote. Parliamentary tradition is fairly clear that it's entirely inappropriate for Cabinet ministers to vote against the government and so their votes aren't considered 'whipped'. The are part of the government doing the whipping. Any member of Martin's cabinet was free to vote his/her conscience as a private member, but they cannot continue to stay in the cabinet that advises the Crown if they don't agree with the direction of her government. A cabinet member who votes against his government is honour bound to resign from that government ... the PM has no real input into the question.

(3) The problem with bringing it before the house for a vote is that it would be stupid. Several provincial supreme courts have agreed that it would be unconstitutional, and its a virtual certainty that the SCC would agree. Therefore its a moot effort, therefore wasteful, therefore stupid. It's also stupid on principle: the notion of taking equal rights away from people ought to be abhorent to any responsible political party.

4) Tell me how they caved in. I will go back to my point about income trusts. Show me you are qualified to make comments on the deal and I will discuss them with you.

(1)They caved by accepting a deal that was less than what the NAFTA tribunals awarded us.

(2) Your fixation on qualifications is ludicrous. Who here tenders their qualifications in order to carry on a discussion?? No-one, that's who. What are you're qualifications?

(3) Discuss it with me if you want to, or don't. But don't imagine I give a sweet #$%&.

5) The floor crossing by Emerson. Yes, a shot in the foot. It wasn't in good taste. But it was different than Belinda's departure.

Yes, Emerson's move was much more disgraceful.

6) Afghanistan is a NATO run mission. Canada has a limited role in guiding the troops. Should we have a clear plan outlined by OUR government, yes, and I hope that plan come to light in the coming months. But so far I like the way things are progressing in Afghanistan. The mission security that our troops are trying to provide is an important piece to rebuilding Afghanistan.

Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me?

7) I haven't heard about the Senator issue. If you can provide a link, it would be much appreciated.

Oh, shurely I'm not 'qualified' to provide links to someone of your extreme expertise.

[blueblood]

??? Cameron, you should be very careful when you put quotes around something. I think I said 'FROM' America. Arming border guards is going to cost ten times what the tories originally said. And for what? Where is the threat? Why do we need to be protected from people crossing from the United States?

By your logic then the cops shouldn't need guns.

[Cameron]

Misquote Fig. That's all. I meant to quote your original comment.

[Figleaf]

Misquote Fig. That's all. I meant to quote your original comment.

Okay

[Ricki Bobbi]

I'm guessing the Liberal delegates won't pick a leader who has a history of breaking promises. The Conservatives are now stuck until the next election with a so-con leader who breaks promises.

So you're guessing the Liberals won't pick Rae?

[Shakeyhands]

And we want to make sure those with short memories don't forget the corruption of the Liberals...

again Ricki, you keep posting this, please tell us about the corruption of the Liberals???? You must be refering to the members of the Liberal party who broke the law and pilfered monies, NOT, in fact, any member of parliament. Stop trying to reenforce a lie. Unless of course you have some proof?

[Canadian Blue]

??? Cameron, you should be very careful when you put quotes around something. I think I said 'FROM' America. Arming border guards is going to cost ten times what the tories originally said. And for what? Where is the threat? Why do we need to be protected from people crossing from the United States?

Actaully the cost isn't going to come from simply arming guards, it is also due to increased hiring for the CBSA. As for why border guards need guns, well I don't know they are border guards and criminals will try to cross the border. You also never heard of the CBSA when I mentioned it in a thread before. Anyways border guards shouldn't be forced to flee their posts when an armed convict is heading towards Canada. Arm them, so we don't see any guards getting killed in the future.

Why does it always take a person to be killed before people want to take action on something? Whenever an incident occurs people always ask what could have been done to prevent this. I have a feeling that if we kept border guards unarmed, and one day a border guard were to be killed people would automatically ask why more wasn't done .

[Ricki Bobbi]

Do you really want to re-initiate an exchange with me? You lost pretty badly last time.

You are replying to qutoes three days after the fact to start fights?

[newbie]

1i) And the reason we like to compare, is because the Liberal government was the only government for the past 14 years. They carry a lot of baggage with them.

And we want to make sure those with short memories don't forget the corruption of the Liberals...

Sheesh, here we go again. Names and dates please of any Liberal member of Parliament involved in corruption.