Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Winnipeg Sun calls Julian "full o' bluster"

Today's Winnipeg Sun called Peter Julian's fillibuster a part of what's wrong with the current minority Parliament.

Yesterday, Peter Julian kept a committee tied up for 15 or so hours as he worked through nearly 100 minor changes to the softwood lumber agreement. By the end of the evening, the other MPs did not seem to be too happy with the Burnaby NDPer. The agreement moves forward despite Julian's day of delay.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

neocons have a reason to be proud of being neocons.

the NDP should've admitted (although i doubt they ever will) that they're just pandering to anti-US hatred without knowing or being willing to acknowledge the whole truth behind the softwood lumber dispute and eventual settlement. the fact is, the best deal we could've gotten would be $1 billion less than what we did get if we waited until the Democrats took over the Senate.

11/09/2006 4:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Julian is full of hot air.

Obvious political stunt.

He doens't know a board from a burr.

11/09/2006 10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

julian is no more full of hot air and bluster than the incessant whining and complaining that goes on on this site about anything non conservative. The same people who got their knickers in a twist when Brison, Stronach and Martin (Dr. Keith) crossed the floor and joined the liberals sat eerily silently by when Emerson did exactly the same thing.

In terms of the softwood lumber sell out, if you think it's been settled by this so called "best deal we could get" get ready for when commodity prices dip, and the US economy slows down as it is doing. Dems or no dems in the house, the us commerce dept will hammer the crap out of us again, only with our own money.

Julian engaged in a filabuster, in his role as international trade critic. It's a damn lot more than the so called "official opposition" has done. At any rate, when it comes to burnaby politics at the federal level, I guess you guys need to be reminded that a distant 3rd place does not make for relevance in the region.

11/09/2006 10:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In terms of the softwood lumber sell out, if you think it's been settled by this so called "best deal we could get" get ready for when commodity prices dip, and the US economy slows down as it is doing. "

Uh huh, and the same thing would have happened if the deal was done according to Julian's wishes.

"Dems or no dems in the house, the us commerce dept will hammer the crap out of us again, only with our own money. "

No they won't. Since they would be under the terms of a signed agreement.

But they would have done the same thing
if they chose, if the deal came out the way Julian wanted.

"Julian engaged in a filabuster, in his role as international trade critic. "

That's what the NDP are best at, being
critics. They aren't good at coming up with things that actually work.

"It's a damn lot more than the so called "official opposition" has done.

I'd give the Liberals credit, at least we tried. The NDP didn't until Julian saw the publicity potential

"At any rate, when it comes to burnaby politics at the federal level, I guess you guys need to be reminded that a distant 3rd place does not make for relevance in the region. "

Think the NDP needs to be reminded that eventually the NDP in Burnaby will collapse. Nothing is forever, and all it takes is to find the NDP's weakest spot.

In fact it can be said, an MP from the party of government can get alot more done than an MP from a dinky little party that will never become government.

Julian is just critic because jsut about every NDP MP has been given a critic's post. It's not about his occupational or extra-curricular interest in the forest industry,
which for him, doesn't exist.

11/10/2006 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few points to quibble with while we're cutting and pasting

"I'd give the Liberals credit, at least we tried."

Tried what??? Unless you call that snore of a so called leadership race, trying. Didn't know that navel gazing was considered acting like the opposition in the house. The problem with the Liberals is obvious. They're more concerned with their internal politics, then they are in what's in the best interests of Canadians.

"Nothing is forever, and all it takes is to find the NDP's weakest spot."

Hmm. Seems whether its Bill Siksay, Peter Julian, or Dawn Black, they seem to do a hell of a lot of constituent work. And of course, speak to issues that are relevant to those people who elected them. And unlike people like Paul Forseth and Joyce Murray (Navel Gazer hall of famers) They take an interest in the entire community, not just the segment with the 6 digit incomes and neo con values.

"No they won't. Since they would be under the terms of a signed agreement."

Yeah like they respected NAFTA right? Wasn't or isn't NAFTA a signed agreement??? Remember how this entire thing got started? Remember every victory at every step of the NAFTA and WTO appeal process that Canada won. Inspite of legal victory after legal victory, the good ol US of A still ignored every ruling and did whatever it wanted.

"That's what the NDP are best at, being
critics."

That's the job of the opposition, and if you as a Liberal still don't understand that, then that's reason enough why whether its iggy or Rae, you guys still shouldn't be back in power.

"an MP from a dinky little party that will never become government."

Funny, with each of the last 2 elections the NDP's numbers and support have gone up. Can you guess which party's support and numbers in the house have dropped??? An effective opposition in a minority parliament, and one with the chance to hold the balance of power after the next election, cause Harper isn't getting a majority and no one thinks the fiberals have served enough time on the sidelines, is almost as good as being in government. CPP... guess who. EI... guess who? Health care... guess who. social assistance... guess who? Historically, the NDP has done alot to influence and drive the legislative agenda in this country, and continue to do so.

Meanwhile, has anyone heard any liberals speak in the house, on anything relevant to Canadians. Not the political junkies on blogs like this, but joe and june six pack??? As stated previously, nothing happens til new leader elected. And afterwards, same thing.

Feel free to have another go at it. I love this type of debate.

11/14/2006 10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hmm. Seems whether its Bill Siksay, Peter Julian, or Dawn Black, they seem to do a hell of a lot of constituent work.

and Dawn Black got bumped off previously by Forseth?

"And of course, speak to issues that are relevant to those people who elected them. "

The NDP membership and supporters. The NDP MP's aren't interested in anyone else.

"And unlike people like Paul Forseth and Joyce Murray (Navel Gazer hall of famers) They take an interest in the entire community, not just the segment with the 6 digit incomes and neo con values."

and the NDP has the market on the interest of the entire community?
Hmm. Seems to be alot of things the NDP said they would do, but didn't
and can't.

"Yeah like they respected NAFTA right? Wasn't or isn't NAFTA a signed agreement??? Remember how this entire thing got started? Remember every victory at every step of the NAFTA and WTO appeal process that Canada won. Inspite of legal victory after legal victory, the good ol US of A still ignored every ruling and did whatever it wanted."

Remember the constant screeching of the NDP on the issue?

"That's the job of the opposition, and if you as a Liberal still don't understand that, then that's reason enough why whether its iggy or Rae, you guys still shouldn't be back in power."

The NDP won't BE in power.

"Funny, with each of the last 2 elections the NDP's numbers and support have gone up. Can you guess which party's support and numbers in the house have dropped???

Doesn't matter. The NDP will never be
government. They simply don't have the numbers available. Nice try though.

"An effective opposition in a minority parliament, and one with the chance to hold the balance of power after the next election, cause Harper isn't getting a majority and no one thinks the fiberals have served enough time on the sidelines, is almost as good as being in government. CPP... guess who. EI... guess who? Health care... guess who. social assistance... guess who?"

All of those things came about from the NDP in the past (Tommy Douglas, et. al). Not much constructive coming out the Nouveau NDP these days.

The only thing the NDP came up with in recent time is a publcity hound by the name of Svend Robinson.

"Historically, the NDP has done alot to influence and drive the legislative agenda in this country, and continue to do so."

sure. drive the other MP's nuts.

"Meanwhile, has anyone heard any liberals speak in the house, on anything relevant to Canadians."

Quite a bit actually.

"Feel free to have another go at it. I love this type of debate"

So do we, and so do the folks next door with the Conservative sign on the front lawn.

Keep trying though.

and wasn't it Peter Julian that was squaking about aircraft carriers in the previous election (2004)?

Ol'Peter forgot one thing. None of the CF-14's at Comox or Cold Lake can land on aircraft cariers.

he also forgot to think of the fact that additional marine equipment for the CF forces in Esquimalt would also mean the ability to provide better search and rescue since addiitonal vesels can also be used for that task.

The guy is a joke.

One can get more done as an MP in government than one in Opposition.

But keep trying.

11/15/2006 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look the original premise of the very first comment was simply that if the NDP thinks that dragging on the good fight to demand the sky from the Americans is more important than losing out $1 billion from the softwood lumber dispute (as the Byrd Amendment was was worth that much essentially), then the NDP shouldn't be considered to be supporters of the lumber industry in any rational sense of the term "supporters".

as a side note, bragging about vote-grabbing exploits is as crass as barflies talking about the sizes of their genitals. while i cannot speak for other neocons, i talk serious policy regardless of whether the Conservatives won government, and regardless of what the polls say today. so don't make me forward the suggestion that the entire population of NDP voters and party members should move to Venezuela and vote for Hugo Chavez's 25-year referendum.

11/16/2006 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"so don't make me forward the suggestion that the entire population of NDP voters and party members should move to Venezuela and vote for Hugo Chavez's 25-year referendum."

No more so than I would tell you to take the far right leaning policies of the neo con movement and move into the bible belt of the deep south of the US, where it truly belongs.

"Doesn't matter. The NDP will never be
government. They simply don't have the numbers available. Nice try though."

Well they said the same thing about the reform party didn't they? For now, as long as you have Quebec, and them splitting between the BQ and whoever, it's a minority government for the foreseeable future.

("Meanwhile, has anyone heard any liberals speak in the house, on anything relevant to Canadians.")

"Quite a bit actually."

By the way, who is the Liberal International Trade critic? I guess that would have been Emerson, had he not crossed the floor. But I suppose Bill Graham's been too busy to bother naming one. For that fact, just who are the opposition critics and their roles. Because other than who's ponying up and kissing up to whatever leadership hopeful, the Liberals haven't been seen to be doing anything to actually stand up and do the job as the Official Opposition.

"The guy is a joke."

That's your opinion I suppose, but seeing as he walked away with a larger win in 2006 than in 2004, I would say that the voters don't necessarily share your opinion.

"Ol'Peter forgot one thing. None of the CF-14's at Comox or Cold Lake can land on aircraft cariers"

First of all, they are CF 18 Hornets, and can be easily converted to land on aircraft carriers. The versatility of those aircraft was one of the primary reasons of their original purchase during the early 80s. And further to the record, there are only (I believe) 2 CF 18s based in Comox, if any at all. The fighter squadron that was based there (the fightin 409 Nighthawks) was moved to Cold Lake in the early 90s, and a fighter presence on the West Coast was lost. In a brilliant move, similar to the closing down of CFB Chilliwack. Ohh I'm sorry, I forgot, I'm NDP, I'm not supposed to be conversant of defense policy or military history. Another wrong assumption based on generalizations. Just like I suppose that every person who was a Progressive Conservative supporter, supports Chuckie the Prime Minister and his made in Alberta far right ideology. Fair comment.

"he also forgot to think of the fact that additional marine equipment for the CF forces in Esquimalt would also mean the ability to provide better search and rescue since addiitonal vesels can also be used for that task."

For someone who really took on the attack of Peter on the military, you do seem to not know what you are talking about.

Search and Rescue on the west coast from a military standpoint is done by 442 search and rescue squadron based in Comox BC. They are well known for handing out bumper stickers to people who's lives they save that state.. "my ass was saved by 442 SAR squadron"

Along with 442, the Canadian coast guard do the bulk of marine search and rescue, not the military. Sorry but our navy is set up as an interdiction force, a blockade type action. I don't see how a frigate or a cruiser is better suited in SAR than that which you already budget for with the Canadian Coast Guard.

"The only thing the NDP came up with in recent time is a publcity hound by the name of Svend Robinson."

I'm sorry, would that be the same one that was MP for over 18 years? How do you do that, if all you are is a 'publicity hound'. And while a lot of people didn't like some of the shenanigans that went along with Svend at times, he still won.

Because like Peter, like Dawn, and like Bill, and like most NDP legislators, they and their staff do the grassroots constituency work, for all their constituents, not just select ones that happen to vote for them. Why has burnaby had the same people in civic power for such a long time? Because they work for all their constituents.

And in terms of never holding power, well... balance of power in a minority parliament is very attainable. And whoever the winner of the leadership race for the Liberals is, people still haven't forgotten about the martin chretien sponsorship scandal. and liberal arrogance.

"and wasn't it Peter Julian that was squaking about aircraft carriers in the previous election (2004)?"

actually he was speaking to the cost of such an outlandish project, something that was being proposed during the campaign by the conservatives, and defended by mike redmond. How do you cut taxes drastically and increase military spending drastically was the point. To go from surplusses to the old conservative way of doing things in the 80s (racking up deficit after deficit after deficit), made no sense.

Spend the money on things needed. Sorry but a helicopter carrier / aircraft carrier was at the time very excessive. Had they had won government, would they have done it? Probably not. It was an outlandish campaign promise and Peter was merely tearing it apart from a fiscal point of view. After all, as his previous job was as an executive director of a non profit organization, he does have the fiscal management skills. He knows how to balance budgets.

11/18/2006 8:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for sidestepping the issue that even the stupidest of the neocons wouldn't favor a 25-year tenure for either George Bush or Stephen Harper.

11/18/2006 10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for sidestepping the issue that even the stupidest of the neocons wouldn't favor a 25-year tenure for either George Bush or Stephen Harper.

George Bush won't be running next time as he is by the U.S. Constitution, not allowed to. So I wouldn't waste pixels on George Dubya.

As for Stephen Harper, most Canadian PMs don't last longer than 10 years,
thankfully.

11/19/2006 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No more so than I would tell you to take the far right leaning policies of the neo con movement and move into the bible belt of the deep south of the US, where it truly belongs."

You're confusing U.S. politics with Cdn. politics. Quite different, but to the socialists, it doesn't matter does it?

"Well they said the same thing about the reform party didn't they? For now, as long as you have Quebec, and them splitting between the BQ and whoever, it's a minority government for the foreseeable future."

Still the NDP doesn't have the numbers nor the market share to make the sale.

"By the way, who is the Liberal International Trade critic? I guess that would have been Emerson, had he not crossed the floor. But I suppose Bill Graham's been too busy to bother naming one. "

Ask your friendly neigbourhood Liberal.

"or that fact, just who are the opposition critics and their roles. Because other than who's ponying up and kissing up to whatever leadership hopeful, the Liberals haven't been seen to be doing anything to actually stand up and do the job as the Official Opposition."

The NDP was in the same position not long ago leading up to the leadership convention that elected Jack Layton.

"That's your opinion I suppose, but seeing as he walked away with a larger win in 2006 than in 2004, I would say that the voters don't necessarily share your opinion. "

When you're at the bottom, there's no way to go except up.

"First of all, they are CF 18 Hornets, and can be easily converted to land on aircraft carriers. "

Possible.

"The versatility of those aircraft was one of the primary reasons of their original purchase during the early 80s. And further to the record, there are only (I believe) 2 CF 18s based in Comox, if any at all. The fighter squadron that was based there (the fightin 409 Nighthawks) was moved to Cold Lake in the early 90s, and a fighter presence on the West Coast was lost. In a brilliant move, similar to the closing down of CFB Chilliwack."

That was a dumb move on part of the federal Liberals.

"Ohh I'm sorry, I forgot, I'm NDP, I'm not supposed to be conversant of defense policy or military history."

NDPers are more conversant on peace marches and that sort of thing.


"Another wrong assumption based on generalizations. Just like I suppose that every person who was a Progressive Conservative supporter, supports Chuckie the Prime Minister and his made in Alberta far right ideology. Fair comment."

Who?



"Along with 442, the Canadian coast guard do the bulk of marine search and rescue, not the military. "

Granted, but the NDP hasn't come up with the nifty idea to combine the two, for SAR which is possible. Peter certainly didn't have the light bulb on top of his head on in regards to that one.

"Sorry but our navy is set up as an interdiction force, a blockade type action. I don't see how a frigate or a cruiser is better suited in SAR than that which you already budget for with the Canadian Coast Guard."

Logistics. If the frigate is already out in an area where there is trouble it would make more sense to dispatch it immedidately rather than wait for the CCG vessel to head out to the incident. Reponse is critical obviously and it would be better to
have the military and CCG work together on that aspect.


I'm sorry, would that be the same one that was MP for over 18 years? How do you do that, if all you are is a 'publicity hound'.

Simple, by being a model MP, which he was, but Svendy was also notorious for seeking publicity. His crying episode was wonderfully mastered. Excellent acting on his part.

"And while a lot of people didn't like some of the shenanigans that went along with Svend at times, he still won."

Obvously.

"Because like Peter, like Dawn, and like Bill, and like most NDP legislators, they and their staff do the grassroots constituency work, for all their constituents, not just select ones that happen to vote for them."

Oh puhleez. You think the NDP has the
monopoly on that stuff? Get real.

"Why has burnaby had the same people in civic power for such a long time? Because they work for all their constituents."

If you mean at the civic council level, its simply because the opposition party (Team Burnaby) doesn't know how to do things right, except give out paid campaign positions to friends and insiders.


"And in terms of never holding power, well... balance of power in a minority parliament is very attainable. "

It is, but then you start selling your soul to get something, and that's bad.

"And whoever the winner of the leadership race for the Liberals is, people still haven't forgotten about the martin chretien sponsorship scandal. and liberal arrogance. "

We're arrogant? Who us?

"and wasn't it Peter Julian that was squaking about aircraft carriers in the previous election (2004)?"

"actually he was speaking to the cost of such an outlandish project, something that was being proposed during the campaign by the conservatives, and defended by mike redmond. How do you cut taxes drastically and increase military spending drastically was the point. To go from surplusses to the old conservative way of doing things in the 80s (racking up deficit after deficit after deficit), made no sense."

Neither did Julian's stupid idea of mentioning aircraft carriers since vessels of that type were never part of the CF Maritime Command's goals.


"Spend the money on things needed. Sorry but a helicopter carrier / aircraft carrier was at the time very excessive. Had they had won government, would they have done it? Probably not. It was an outlandish campaign promise and Peter was merely tearing it apart from a fiscal point of view. After all, as his previous job was as an executive director of a non profit organization, he does have the fiscal management skills. He knows how to balance budgets. "

He's not the only person who knows how to balance a budget and not the only one who has worked a non profit organization.

Peter is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. He also needs to learn a bit more about the CF and possible roles it can play in Canada, plus he should learn a bit more about the dynamics of the forest industry.

His filibuster was just wasting taxpayer time since the agreement was already said, done and signed.

11/19/2006 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He also needs to learn a bit more about the CF and possible roles it can play in Canada..."

The next door neighbour to Peter, Dawn Black is the critic responsible for defense. And it's funny that the federal ndp has taken a beating over its calls to pull the troops from Afghanistan, if there is no defined mission objectives. I heard Gerard Kennedy, federal liberal leadership candidate echo those exact same sentiments on the not so Good Bill show on either Thursday or Friday.

I won't lie and say that there aren't those in the NDP who are anti military, police and authority in general. Personally, I support the troops in Afghanistan, but I don't support the government for sending them into harm's way with no defined clearly defined mission objectives, other than mopping up after Bush's incursion and overthrow. There is a purpose for our troops being there. Not only are they there to fight the remnants of the taliban and Al Queda, they are supposed to be bringing stability to the region. What's got me frosted, is that there was a record opium crop this year.

And it was harvested right under the noses of the various troops in that country. How can you bring peace and stability to a region ruled by regional warlords and drug kingpins? The entire Afghanistan mission has been flawed from the get go. First the liberals sent the troops in with no objectives at all, then the conservatives extended the mission while still establishing no mission objectives.

There are those in the NDP that don't get the fact that the Canadian Forces are merely the pointed end of the spear of government policy directives. They don't set policy, objectives or anything. They take orders from their political masters. I for one, inspite of being an NDP supporter, do not agree with those who protest and talk down about the troops in Afghanistan. You can support our soldiers as they are citizens, and still be critical of the mission in which they are over there serving. Some people don't get that and never will, to their own detriment.

But I digress. In terms of the forest industry, I can see where 80 percent of the duties owing, in exchange for an export tax, and more importantly settlement of the dispute for now, would look appealing. But in the overall scheme of our trading relationship with the US under FTA and NAFTA, why is it that what's stated under NAFTA no longer applies to the forest industry? That they are subject to bogus duties and now export taxes for their product, yet the US can enjoy unfettered access to our markets?

At what point will someone, anyone stand up and say that the NAFTA model of free trade doesn't work if everyone doesn't play by the same rules? Now Harper wants to lower the bar even further by introducing the APEC countries to free trade, NAFTA style. why not use the European Union model of free trade, where you have to apply and come up to the standards, rather than racing to the lowest common denominator?

His filibuster (part II coming tomorrow by the way) isn't a waste of taxpayer's time, in the eyes of people who have taken a sh*t kicking from crappy trade deals like NAFTA. Parliamentary procedure is a lost art in this country, and it's something that he, along with others in the house and outside the house are using to make the point that a bad deal is a bad deal. Wasn't it the conservatives who used the saying "standing up for Canadians?"

it's too bad that Emerson couldn't have done that, while negotiating behind closed doors with the ol us of a. The deal is so transparent, one wonders why he couldn't have done it while being a member of the martin cabinet??? he probably tried to bring it forward and Martin et al told him it was a sell out and they weren't interested.

"Neither did Julian's stupid idea of mentioning aircraft carriers since vessels of that type were never part of the CF Maritime Command's goals."

the conservative candidate and the harper campaign talked about buying helicopter carriers and the like during the 2004 campaign. As stated previously, all Peter did was use it as a pie in the sky campaign promise by the conservatives, to show that you can't cut taxes and revenue and spend like a drunken sailor on new toys for the navy. He didn't raise the spector of aircraft carriers, the conservatives opened that door themselves, and perhaps he may have used a touch of hyperbole, but in politics who doesn't?

"Oh puhleez. You think the NDP has the
monopoly on that stuff? Get real."

No I don't think that the NDP has a monopoly on that. However, you previously stated that 'the guy is a joke.'

Well, you don't win 2 elections, the second one by 10 times the margin as the first one, by being "a joke."

I think personally, and I've never said this before, that the joke is the fact that the conservatives have finished a very very distant 3rd place in the last 2 elections. Finished behind a former city of new westminster planner with a rather interesting history (ie not the squeakiest of clean reputations)

Redmond was a credible candidate, to a point (federal conservative, BC Liberal) but Mark Dalton??? And now pinning you're hopes on Warawa Jr.? Now I am assuming the last one, because simply put he's been beating at the door the last while, and not that quietly either. I mean when it comes to the title of this thread... "full o bluster" one could say that this site is just that... full o bluster. Only I would use an 8 letter word starting with the letter b and rhyming with the word Bullsh*t.

in terms of chavez and his 25 year whatever, no, i'm not in favour of that either. I'm not Shining Path, or marxist leninist or anything like that.

I don't know the words to the Internationale, nor do I take MayDay off work. I do believe that there has to be a balance in the economy. That without a strong workforce, companies and employers can't do well. And conversly without strong employers and companies, workers cannot do well. But a hard swing one way or the other, no I don't like that. Unfortunately, right now the pendulum is swung heavily in favour of management and corporations, and should be brought back towards the middle.

I tend to lean towards the saskatchewan /manitoba ndp way of things.

11/19/2006 11:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The next door neighbour to Peter, Dawn Black is the critic responsible for defense. And it's funny that the federal ndp has taken a beating over its calls to pull the troops from Afghanistan, if there is no defined mission objectives."

There are defined mission objectives.
In fact it was stated that the President of Afghanistan does indeed want the CF to remain.

The NDP is just opposed to conflict.

"I heard Gerard Kennedy, federal liberal leadership candidate echo those exact same sentiments on the not so Good Bill show on either Thursday or Friday."

That's a bit odd since the federal Liberals voted to keep the CF there until 2009.

"Not only are they there to fight the remnants of the taliban and Al Queda, they are supposed to be bringing stability to the region. What's got me frosted, is that there was a record opium crop this year."

The farmers have no other means of production, but if you can find something that will grow and provide
a means of income for their familes,
by all means send the proposal in. I too would like the opium poppies gone, but unless there is a substitute that is equal to or better than that for
the farmers in terms of income, that's not going to happen.

"And it was harvested right under the noses of the various troops in that country. How can you bring peace and stability to a region ruled by regional warlords and drug kingpins?"

It's a complicated situation. Much of Afghanistan has been stablized but the CF are in the part of the country where the Taliban are most active.

"But I digress. In terms of the forest industry, I can see where 80 percent of the duties owing, in exchange for an export tax, and more importantly settlement of the dispute for now, would look appealing. But in the overall scheme of our trading relationship with the US under FTA and NAFTA, why is it that what's stated under NAFTA no longer applies to the forest industry? That they are subject to bogus duties and now export taxes for their product, yet the US can enjoy unfettered access to our markets?"

I have yet to see U.S. lumber coming north. Also there is no Washington State milk coming north, either.

As had been said, this is the best deal we're going to get from them, so there's no point in holding out for more. It's not everything the Cdn. forestry wanted, but few people ever get what they want 100% , 100% of the time.

"At what point will someone, anyone stand up and say that the NAFTA model of free trade doesn't work if everyone doesn't play by the same rules? Now Harper wants to lower the bar even further by introducing the APEC countries to free trade, NAFTA style. why not use the European Union model of free trade, where you have to apply and come up to the standards, rather than racing to the lowest common denominator?"

Ask him.

"His filibuster (part II coming tomorrow by the way) isn't a waste of taxpayer's time, in the eyes of people who have taken a sh*t kicking from crappy trade deals like NAFTA.

That's probably the reason why Peter is doing it. He's not doing for the country, just as a means for those who are his supporters who figure they got a shit kicking from NAFTA.

Parliamentary procedure is a lost art in this country, and it's something that he, along with others in the house and outside the house are using to make the point that a bad deal is a bad deal. Wasn't it the conservatives who used the saying "standing up for Canadians?" "

Peter is just seeking publicity. Debating down to the word to word context (i.e. going through and debate the usage of "the") is a bit much.

"Neither did Julian's stupid idea of mentioning aircraft carriers since vessels of that type were never part of the CF Maritime Command's goals."

"the conservative candidate and the harper campaign talked about buying helicopter carriers and the like during the 2004 campaign. As stated previously, all Peter did was use it as a pie in the sky campaign promise by the conservatives, to show that you can't cut taxes and revenue and spend like a drunken sailor on new toys for the navy."

The CF Maritime Command is bady in need of new vessels despite the frigates now in service. Helicopter
carriers are not the same as a traditional aircraft carriers, they are structurally different. The helicopter carrier with helicopters aboard could be used in a variety of applications, the NDP failed to see that. The CF can be reconfigured to
be not only an interdiction force, but one for SAR as well, and that would mean possibily additional vessels, but the NDP in their anti-war wisdom doesn't see that.

Peter was talking about something that simply wouldn't happen.

"He didn't raise the spector of aircraft carriers, the conservatives opened that door themselves, and perhaps he may have used a touch of hyperbole, but in politics who doesn't?"

Peter did mention "aircraft carriers"
and it was hyperbole and a real stretch of his imagination. Aircraft carriers are very expensive to maintain as they require additional members, and facilties, something which the CF Maritime Command simply
would not at this time, consider.

"No I don't think that the NDP has a monopoly on that. However, you previously stated that 'the guy is a joke.'

Well, you don't win 2 elections, the second one by 10 times the margin as the first one, by being "a joke."

Only by catering to those who would ordinarily vote NDP. The NDP does have getting their own out to vote down to a science. I'll give them credit for that.

But one can get more done being a government MP than an opposition MP.

"I think personally, and I've never said this before, that the joke is the fact that the conservatives have finished a very very distant 3rd place in the last 2 elections. Finished behind a former city of new westminster planner with a rather interesting history (ie not the squeakiest of clean reputations)

Redmond was a credible candidate, to a point (federal conservative, BC Liberal) but Mark Dalton??? And now pinning you're hopes on Warawa Jr.?"

Sorry, wrong party, chum. I just watch from the stands and read the game program. I'll leave the power plays to the teams when they're on the ice.


"Now I am assuming the last one, because simply put he's been beating at the door the last while, and not that quietly either. I mean when it comes to the title of this thread... "full o bluster" one could say that this site is just that... full o bluster. Only I would use an 8 letter word starting with the letter b and rhyming with the word Bullsh*t."

The NDP has the market share on bullsh*t.

"I tend to lean towards the saskatchewan /manitoba ndp way of things. "

Unfortnately the Manitoba NDP way of things doesn't exist here. BC is stuck with the old NDP, stuck somewhat in the 1960's, not particularly business friendly and way out to lunch on some things they would want to do if somehow they became government.

11/20/2006 9:07 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home