Yes and no ... I'd agree with you more strongly if he actually put some legislative muscle behind what he has been saying, in terms of foreign policy changes. And its not like he's saying things that are THAT radically out-of-sync with how many Canadians feel about the situation. What was that last poll stat again? Maybe its because I agree with him more than some of you guys do ... What exactly is so terrible about what he actually said? I agree that he should have put a stronger emphasis on Israel's misguided killings of Lebanese civilians. A huge error of omission, granted.
well, then i guess it depends on the level of interest of each individuals on the Israel-Lebanon situation, but it's an error to take this "radical" solid stance in this conflict in my opinion. I'll leave it at "the PM have responsabilities".
I agree with you and Surferdude, the impact is equal to none on the policy and on the world stage opinion (i mean look at how everyone forget to add Canada when talking about the support to Israel). But i think he'll get defeated at first occasion in the parliament, get geared up for an election if Harper puts a confidence vote ahead...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
well, then i guess it depends on the level of interest of each individuals on the Israel-Lebanon situation, but it's an error to take this "radical" solid stance in this conflict in my opinion. I'll leave it at "the PM have responsabilities".
I agree with you and Surferdude, the impact is equal to none on the policy and on the world stage opinion (i mean look at how everyone forget to add Canada when talking about the support to Israel). But i think he'll get defeated at first occasion in the parliament, get geared up for an election if Harper puts a confidence vote ahead...
Maybe, but this is not necessarily a good thing. I do not want another fucking election, so much so that I am willing to swear to make the point.
One thing I'd like to see implemented is the losing of Canadian citizenship if you have dual citizenship and are out of the country for too long while not paying taxes. Too many people use a Canadian passport and citizenship for reasons of convenience. It has nothing to due with their life situation, allegiance or loyalty for too many.
I believe there is a two year residency rule required for Canadian citizenship. I think conversely if you hold dual citizenship you should lose Canadian citizenship and passport priviledges after two years out of the country and not paying Canadian taxes.
That would be a major reform, probably unpopular one. I'd agree with an immigration reform, not that i want less or more, just to make it up to date with the 21st century.
No change to refugees though, i want Canada to be even more open arms to refugees.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
That would be a major reform, probably unpopular one. I'd agree with an immigration reform, not that i want less or more, just to make it up to date with the 21st century.
No change to refugees though, i want Canada to be even more open arms to refugees.
I want less refugees, more highly skilled immigrants.
Regarding refugees I'd rather Canada had a bigger presence on the world stage both as a peace keeper and providing aid and education. With the result that there'd be less real refugees period.
My opinion is that the majority of refugees aren't real refugees but economic refugees. They look to Canada just as place to make more money for their family. I feel no need to let this type of "refugee" in, all it does is leave less space for real refugees. Those fleeing war zones and political oppression.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I want less refugees, more highly skilled immigrants.
Regarding refugees I'd rather Canada had a bigger presence on the world stage both as a peace keeper and providing aid and education. With the result that there'd be less real refugees period.
My opinion is that the majority of refugees aren't real refugees but economic refugees. They look to Canada just as place to make more money for their family. I feel no need to let this type of "refugee" in, all it does is leave less space for real refugees. Those fleeing war zones and political oppression.
Pretty close to agreeing with you, except I'd want to see some stats on economic vs. political refugees.
I think Canada should do more to accomodate refugees as well. Perhaps we have to come up with a better screening system to decide which refugees are most in need.
I think Canada should do more to accomodate refugees as well. Perhaps we have to come up with a better screening system to decide which refugees are most in need.
sounds good, and having more peace keeping presences could help to reduce that number of refugees "worldwide".
I'm sure we could settle Canada up from this Message board, someone call Harper and tell him we don't need him anymore...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
So would I, my remarks come close to being a bit red-neck without meaning to.
yeah i feel like the line is very thin myself, it's hard to talk about this, that's why a reform is not likely to happen soon, in my opinion. Plus government would just go too far and would piss everyone off, as usual... hehe.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
yeah i feel like the line is very thin myself, it's hard to talk about this, that's why a reform is not likely to happen soon, in my opinion. Plus government would just go too far and would piss everyone off, as usual... hehe.
Its hard to talk about because we've made ourselves so politically correct that absolutely any kind of stance on an issue can be taken as "-ist" by someone. Sad state of affairs.
Its hard to talk about because we've made ourselves so politically correct that absolutely any kind of stance on an issue can be taken as "-ist" by someone. Sad state of affairs.
Redneckist!!!!!
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I don't know, dude ... I was geared up to hate Harper if he did things like put our social programs in serious danger, send troops to Iraq, implement draconian Patriot Act-type legislation, etc. While I don't agree with everything he has done to date (e.g., ignore the environment, much like previous Liberal PMs), I think he's done an alright job of NOT turning us into America junior.
he is in a minority position and yet he's taken us out of kyoto, he's spat in the face of accountability, he has killed our child care program and he sold us out on softwood lumber ...
what decisions has he made that aren't the same ideology as bush? ... he wants to reopen same sex marriage in the fall when the mp's gather again ...
he is in a minority position and yet he's taken us out of kyoto, he's spat in the face of accountability, he has killed our child care program and he sold us out on softwood lumber ...
what decisions has he made that aren't the same ideology as bush? ... he wants to reopen same sex marriage in the fall when the mp's gather again ...
But you failed to mention that "he has killed our child care program" was a good move and he got us a softwood lumber deal that is up to industry to approve.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
But you failed to mention that "he has killed our child care program" was a good move and he got us a softwood lumber deal that is up to industry to approve.
not to the majority of canadians ...
as for softwood lumber - he threatened the industry saying it was this deal or nothing ... why do you think all the provinces are griping? ... industry hates the deal ...
he just threatens everyone when he doesn't get his way ... if you don't support it - i'll call an election ... if you don't get an equalization deal - i'll make one up ...
lumber deal is a screwjob, they changed some of the points in the final text (not talking about the billion that we gave them for screwing us), i don't know if they were hoping that the industry wouldn't notice, but how stupid to do, of course the industry is angry, but as Polaris said, it's this deal or nothing, so they'll probably take it, and it will be seen as a win from Harper...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I've said it many times before, but here goes again ... Kyoto is ineffectual, and therefore breaking our association with that accord is not a bad thing.
As for softwood lumber ... Dare I say that how that turned out was probably the best we were going to get from the Americans? Believe it or not, I wouldn't not have criticized another PM on that particular issue.
I've said it many times before, but here goes again ... Kyoto is ineffectual, and therefore breaking our association with that accord is not a bad thing.
As for softwood lumber ... Dare I say that how that turned out was probably the best we were going to get from the Americans? Believe it or not, I wouldn't not have criticized another PM on that particular issue.
and i've rebutted each time that the targets of kyoto are a joke ... germany is 17.5% below their 1990 levels ... but when you placate alberta and the oil industry - of course it is ineffective ... secondary to that - not having a plan at all to address climate change is as backwards as it gets this day and age - it puts us with guess who? ... yup the americans ...
we had that deal a year ago - and emerson turned it down then - for very good reason ... if that is the best deal out there - then we are pretty much saying america can dictate its own laws which essentially makes us america jr ...
and i've rebutted each time that the targets of kyoto are a joke ... germany is 17.5% below their 1990 levels ... but when you placate alberta and the oil industry - of course it is ineffective ... secondary to that - not having a plan at all to address climate change is as backwards as it gets this day and age - it puts us with guess who? ... yup the americans ...
we had that deal a year ago - and emerson turned it down then - for very good reason ... if that is the best deal out there - then we are pretty much saying america can dictate its own laws which essentially makes us america jr ...
Well, it pisses me off, but America does have a lot of economic clout with us. On an even broader scale, did NAFTA actually result in a lot of benefit for us Canadians? When has the U.S. not called the economic shots on this continent? I am not defending this status quo, by the way. I just choose to view it as a reality of being on this continent, and having a much, much smaller population than our next door neighbor. We rely too much on the Americans for defense matters, too, IMO, yet most America-bashers don't agree with the notion of increased military spending.
and i've rebutted each time that the targets of kyoto are a joke ... germany is 17.5% below their 1990 levels ... but when you placate alberta and the oil industry - of course it is ineffective ... secondary to that - not having a plan at all to address climate change is as backwards as it gets this day and age - it puts us with guess who? ... yup the americans ...
A plan is a good thing, that I can agree with. Ideally, though, the plan will a) actually work (cf. Kyoto), and b) yes, will take into account SOME of the economic realities in this country.
I will gladly agree with you on Harper's approach to climate change issues ... He hasn't done enough. What rankles me a bit is the observation that people would rather have us signatory to something we don't follow anyway rather than nothing at all, even though the end result is the same.
as for softwood lumber - he threatened the industry saying it was this deal or nothing ... why do you think all the provinces are griping? ... industry hates the deal ...
Harper, like any good leader, has reviewed the issue again this is where we stand. I understand that Canada has not had good leadership in a long time so maybe it's hard for some to recognize it when it happens.
OTTAWA -- Trade Minister David Emerson says the beleaguered Canada-U.S. softwood deal might never make it to the House of Commons, a departure from earlier warnings that the government was prepared to fight an election on the issue.
“It is fair to say that if we do not have sufficient buy-in from industry there really isn’t an agreement to bring before Parliament,” Emerson said Monday.
“So the first bridge we have to cross is to get the agreement supported by the appropriate number of players in the industry, otherwise you’re dead before arrival.”
A few weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared the treaty the best deal Canada was going to get, and said the legislation to implement it would constitute a confidence motion for the minority Conservative government.
But persistent criticism from provincial governments and the lumber industry have raised the possibility the deal with wither away before the scheduled fall vote. The document signed by the Canadian and U.S. governments requires that 95 per cent of the Canadian industry support the agreement, a threshold that at the moment seems unlikely to be met.
Even Canfor, a major lumber firm that is backing the deal, said Monday the pact is unlikely to survive without changes.
“Unfortunately you know everyone is going to held to the wishes of a few or many depending on just how real these needs are ...,” said Canfor CEO Jim Shepherd.
“If there are no changes to the deal, it is highly problematic that this deal will go ahead and we will just continue with the litigation to its final conclusion.”
Saskatchewan’s Forestry Minister Eldon Lautermilch is one of the voices clamouring for changes. He said the treaty is unfair and unworkable for his province.
“Canada should now be working to address the inequities in the deal,” he told a special meeting of the Commons Trade committee.
Emerson told the MPs the “negotiations are over,” and there would be no new-and-improved deal.
He acknowledged that there’s a clause in the treaty that allows the countries to make amendments — but that’s only possible once the deal is in force.
“It is technically possible for both parties to agree to changes to the agreement — that is written into the agreement,” he said.
Rather than entertain any notions of further negotiations, Emerson has been aggressively trying to persuade provincial governments and industry players that the agreement signed July 1 is the best overall solution to the decades-old dispute.
Emerson’s message is that there are only two options: sign-on to the new treaty, or continue with drawn out, costly litigation and escalating tariffs from south of the border.
“There is no doubt that if we walked away from the agreement, the industry in the U.S. would start another (trade) action against Canada,” Emerson said.
“Think about a world where (housing) markets are going into the ditch ... consumer confidence is plummeting, and if you think the U.S. industry isn’t going to take the opportunity to go after Canada again, think again.”
While Emerson went into detailed predictions about what would happen if the deal isn’t supported, he would not address the “hypothetical” scenario of the deal collapsing because a single Canadian company refused to drop its lawsuit against the United States.
“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” he said of the possibility.
Abandoning litigation is a central requirement of the treaty, and one that rubs many industry players the wrong way since Canada has been successful in nearly all its cases against the United States.
Ten days ago, Canada won a key case at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Washington has not said if it will appeal the ruling.
The agreement would return roughly 80 per cent or $4.3 billion in penalties to the Canadian softwood industry. Businesses would be bound by rules and quotas designed to prevent too much less expensive Canadian lumber from going into the United States in any given month.
The deal would last for seven years, but the U.S. could declare it’s withdrawing within two years. Emerson noted that most major trade agreements, including NAFTA, have six-month termination clauses.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I really don't care who runs the country as long as they don't make any decisions.
I mean, people like people that are unbias, that don't have opinions. We don't need military protection if we don't piss anyone off. I mean when was the last time Switzerland did anything? Nobody cares what they think, but who dislikes them?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I really don't care who runs the country as long as they don't make any decisions.
I mean, people like people that are unbias, that don't have opinions. We don't need military protection if we don't piss anyone off. I mean when was the last time Switzerland did anything? Nobody cares what they think, but who dislikes them?
It has more to do with fucking with peoples money than their politicians.
I'd hate to live in a country that coulnd't speak out against the holocaust.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
A plan is a good thing, that I can agree with. Ideally, though, the plan will a) actually work (cf. Kyoto), and b) yes, will take into account SOME of the economic realities in this country.
I will gladly agree with you on Harper's approach to climate change issues ... He hasn't done enough. What rankles me a bit is the observation that people would rather have us signatory to something we don't follow anyway rather than nothing at all, even though the end result is the same.
we are signatories because climate change is a global problem that requires global co-operation ... it is Canada accepting its role in this crisis ... whether or not the liberals would have achieved those targets is secondary to the fact at least there was a plan ... now all those companies that were about to institute carbon reduction programs have put a halt to them ... because they don't have to anymore ... so, whatever progress was made has been wiped out ...
Comments
well, then i guess it depends on the level of interest of each individuals on the Israel-Lebanon situation, but it's an error to take this "radical" solid stance in this conflict in my opinion. I'll leave it at "the PM have responsabilities".
I agree with you and Surferdude, the impact is equal to none on the policy and on the world stage opinion (i mean look at how everyone forget to add Canada when talking about the support to Israel). But i think he'll get defeated at first occasion in the parliament, get geared up for an election if Harper puts a confidence vote ahead...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Maybe, but this is not necessarily a good thing. I do not want another fucking election, so much so that I am willing to swear to make the point.
That would be a major reform, probably unpopular one. I'd agree with an immigration reform, not that i want less or more, just to make it up to date with the 21st century.
No change to refugees though, i want Canada to be even more open arms to refugees.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Regarding refugees I'd rather Canada had a bigger presence on the world stage both as a peace keeper and providing aid and education. With the result that there'd be less real refugees period.
My opinion is that the majority of refugees aren't real refugees but economic refugees. They look to Canada just as place to make more money for their family. I feel no need to let this type of "refugee" in, all it does is leave less space for real refugees. Those fleeing war zones and political oppression.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Pretty close to agreeing with you, except I'd want to see some stats on economic vs. political refugees.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
This would seem like a step in the right direction ...
sounds good, and having more peace keeping presences could help to reduce that number of refugees "worldwide".
I'm sure we could settle Canada up from this Message board, someone call Harper and tell him we don't need him anymore...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
yeah i feel like the line is very thin myself, it's hard to talk about this, that's why a reform is not likely to happen soon, in my opinion. Plus government would just go too far and would piss everyone off, as usual... hehe.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Its hard to talk about because we've made ourselves so politically correct that absolutely any kind of stance on an issue can be taken as "-ist" by someone. Sad state of affairs.
Redneckist!!!!!
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
he is in a minority position and yet he's taken us out of kyoto, he's spat in the face of accountability, he has killed our child care program and he sold us out on softwood lumber ...
what decisions has he made that aren't the same ideology as bush? ... he wants to reopen same sex marriage in the fall when the mp's gather again ...
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
not to the majority of canadians ...
as for softwood lumber - he threatened the industry saying it was this deal or nothing ... why do you think all the provinces are griping? ... industry hates the deal ...
he just threatens everyone when he doesn't get his way ... if you don't support it - i'll call an election ... if you don't get an equalization deal - i'll make one up ...
lumber deal is a screwjob, they changed some of the points in the final text (not talking about the billion that we gave them for screwing us), i don't know if they were hoping that the industry wouldn't notice, but how stupid to do, of course the industry is angry, but as Polaris said, it's this deal or nothing, so they'll probably take it, and it will be seen as a win from Harper...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
As for softwood lumber ... Dare I say that how that turned out was probably the best we were going to get from the Americans? Believe it or not, I wouldn't not have criticized another PM on that particular issue.
and i've rebutted each time that the targets of kyoto are a joke ... germany is 17.5% below their 1990 levels ... but when you placate alberta and the oil industry - of course it is ineffective ... secondary to that - not having a plan at all to address climate change is as backwards as it gets this day and age - it puts us with guess who? ... yup the americans ...
we had that deal a year ago - and emerson turned it down then - for very good reason ... if that is the best deal out there - then we are pretty much saying america can dictate its own laws which essentially makes us america jr ...
Well, it pisses me off, but America does have a lot of economic clout with us. On an even broader scale, did NAFTA actually result in a lot of benefit for us Canadians? When has the U.S. not called the economic shots on this continent? I am not defending this status quo, by the way. I just choose to view it as a reality of being on this continent, and having a much, much smaller population than our next door neighbor. We rely too much on the Americans for defense matters, too, IMO, yet most America-bashers don't agree with the notion of increased military spending.
A plan is a good thing, that I can agree with. Ideally, though, the plan will a) actually work (cf. Kyoto), and b) yes, will take into account SOME of the economic realities in this country.
I will gladly agree with you on Harper's approach to climate change issues ... He hasn't done enough. What rankles me a bit is the observation that people would rather have us signatory to something we don't follow anyway rather than nothing at all, even though the end result is the same.
Taken from the Canada.com website, http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ea475565-95a6-4c47-8938-b23720c39c30&k=34418
OTTAWA -- Trade Minister David Emerson says the beleaguered Canada-U.S. softwood deal might never make it to the House of Commons, a departure from earlier warnings that the government was prepared to fight an election on the issue.
“It is fair to say that if we do not have sufficient buy-in from industry there really isn’t an agreement to bring before Parliament,” Emerson said Monday.
“So the first bridge we have to cross is to get the agreement supported by the appropriate number of players in the industry, otherwise you’re dead before arrival.”
A few weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared the treaty the best deal Canada was going to get, and said the legislation to implement it would constitute a confidence motion for the minority Conservative government.
But persistent criticism from provincial governments and the lumber industry have raised the possibility the deal with wither away before the scheduled fall vote. The document signed by the Canadian and U.S. governments requires that 95 per cent of the Canadian industry support the agreement, a threshold that at the moment seems unlikely to be met.
Even Canfor, a major lumber firm that is backing the deal, said Monday the pact is unlikely to survive without changes.
“Unfortunately you know everyone is going to held to the wishes of a few or many depending on just how real these needs are ...,” said Canfor CEO Jim Shepherd.
“If there are no changes to the deal, it is highly problematic that this deal will go ahead and we will just continue with the litigation to its final conclusion.”
Saskatchewan’s Forestry Minister Eldon Lautermilch is one of the voices clamouring for changes. He said the treaty is unfair and unworkable for his province.
“Canada should now be working to address the inequities in the deal,” he told a special meeting of the Commons Trade committee.
Emerson told the MPs the “negotiations are over,” and there would be no new-and-improved deal.
He acknowledged that there’s a clause in the treaty that allows the countries to make amendments — but that’s only possible once the deal is in force.
“It is technically possible for both parties to agree to changes to the agreement — that is written into the agreement,” he said.
Rather than entertain any notions of further negotiations, Emerson has been aggressively trying to persuade provincial governments and industry players that the agreement signed July 1 is the best overall solution to the decades-old dispute.
Emerson’s message is that there are only two options: sign-on to the new treaty, or continue with drawn out, costly litigation and escalating tariffs from south of the border.
“There is no doubt that if we walked away from the agreement, the industry in the U.S. would start another (trade) action against Canada,” Emerson said.
“Think about a world where (housing) markets are going into the ditch ... consumer confidence is plummeting, and if you think the U.S. industry isn’t going to take the opportunity to go after Canada again, think again.”
While Emerson went into detailed predictions about what would happen if the deal isn’t supported, he would not address the “hypothetical” scenario of the deal collapsing because a single Canadian company refused to drop its lawsuit against the United States.
“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” he said of the possibility.
Abandoning litigation is a central requirement of the treaty, and one that rubs many industry players the wrong way since Canada has been successful in nearly all its cases against the United States.
Ten days ago, Canada won a key case at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Washington has not said if it will appeal the ruling.
The agreement would return roughly 80 per cent or $4.3 billion in penalties to the Canadian softwood industry. Businesses would be bound by rules and quotas designed to prevent too much less expensive Canadian lumber from going into the United States in any given month.
The deal would last for seven years, but the U.S. could declare it’s withdrawing within two years. Emerson noted that most major trade agreements, including NAFTA, have six-month termination clauses.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I mean, people like people that are unbias, that don't have opinions. We don't need military protection if we don't piss anyone off. I mean when was the last time Switzerland did anything? Nobody cares what they think, but who dislikes them?
I'd hate to live in a country that coulnd't speak out against the holocaust.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
we are signatories because climate change is a global problem that requires global co-operation ... it is Canada accepting its role in this crisis ... whether or not the liberals would have achieved those targets is secondary to the fact at least there was a plan ... now all those companies that were about to institute carbon reduction programs have put a halt to them ... because they don't have to anymore ... so, whatever progress was made has been wiped out ...
and the end result will not be the same ...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
What is he supposed to say, exactly? Should be pull a Gibson and go off on an anti-Semitic rant to appease you guys?
Man, not everything is about Harper. In fact, he's a non-factor in this situation.
Something to the effect of, "Damn those warmongering bloodthirsty Jews" would probably suffice.
As the head of a state with 50000 Lebonese-Canadians who were/are in Lebanon, I think he ought to make a statement.