Oliver:
"Who made the decision not to use the Army, especially for rather simple security jobs like perimeter defence and things like that? They're basic salaries are dramatically lower and they don't get overtime. Why didn't you use the Army?"
Toews:
"Well, we did use the Army for the Olympics. It's quite another thing when you start bring the Army into a civilian context, into a civilian setting. You know what the opposition parties would say, the Liberals would say "the Army, in the street with guns". Do you remember that advertisment? It's exactly the kind of fear that Liberals want to invoke in terms of Canadians. Canadians understand that in a democracy you have the police rather than the Army in the streets. And so, those are political decisions you make, but I think from a perception point of view it's very, very important"
Oliver:
"So, the fact you were worried about what the Liberals might say, could have cost Canadians a couple of hundred of millions of dollars?"
Beyond outrageous.
26 comments:
Ferchrissakes! Toronto once brought in the army for snow removal.
Is the Olympics not a "civilian context"?
Does the Harper government develop other policies to avoid opposition criticism. No. It's only when there is widespread public outcry that they say "The Liberals made us do it."
The fact is that the CPC operates as a majority and never gives a toss what the Liberals, NDP or Bloc say.
Maybe they're going to tighten up environmental regulations because the Liberals will criticize them if they don't. Maybe they'll quit doling out $2 BN a year in corporate welfare to Big Oil if the Libs threaten to criticize.
Who knew the Cons were so worried about being criticized by the opposition?
"Is the Olympics not a "civilian context"?"
People in Vancouver will be shocked to know they don't live in a city.
So, Mr. Toews, rather than getting "the Army, in the street, with guns," we get the police, in the street, with guns?
Oh, good improvement! NOT.
Worried about being criticized by the opposition? Oh c'mon now. The Harperites afraid of the opposition? Essentially, that's what they're saying - well, we know that can't take responsibility like adults.
Disturbing that the Cons have any support whatsoever?
Unbelievable.
And, of course, CTV softsoaped.
Steve,
Yeah, let's get soldiers with guns all over the streets of Toronto. Blockades, and maybe water cannons..., maybe a few half tracks. That is most definitely the image of Canada we want to have. I so want the international media to see that.
Add some anarchists. You know, the guys with black hoods and molotov cocktails that show up at every G8 and WTO event. Add a few greenpeace punks/deep ecologists, some homeless people, and your rent a mob is pretty much set.
THAT should be enough to add 3-5% to the Liberal's and shave 3-5% of the Conservative's. The hidden agenda, not so hidden any more.
If the Liberal's want "power", they should stick with the Power Corp or perhaps buy into Bullfrog.
Or just bottle some of that stuff that is coming our of Mark Holland.
If the Liberal's want soldiers, with guns, in the streets; they should go on The National and tell that to the people.
With respect to the $1B. Vic Toews appeared just as shocked as the rest of the country and indicated he is looking into where the money is going. I'm not happy about it either, but the government is upfront and also looking into it.
"Vic Toews appeared just as shocked as the rest of the country "
Well, that's just pathetic then isn't it? Way to stay on top of your file.
Oh, and btw, didn't it ever dawn on your apologists that nobody held a gun to our heads to hold these meetings in our biggest cities. Fact is, this thing has been handled poorly all the way through, it's amateur hour of the highest order. Circle the wagons if you will, but you have ZERO credibility defending this clusterfuck, of biblical proportions- especially given PAST outrages.
But of course if you bring in the army how are you going to spread the wealth around to your buddies?
For every dollar that was spent on Pittsburg's G20 last year, the Cons are spending 60!
Let's not forget the obscene amounts Clement has spent in his riding, under the guise of this conference. If you look at the expenditures, a good chunk are for jurisdictions that don't host jack squat. AND, for all this talk about showcasing, the media will be stuck in a Toronto bunker, won't see anything. It's a complete joke, from every angle.
Steve,
You are 100% correct and THAT is where the Liberal's need to take their rhetoric. Focus on the exorbitant price tag and support the audit.
Steve,
If there is stuff that includes permanent improvements to either Huntsville or Toronto, the public will forgive that. Did you forget about the "stimulus" funding?
Tomm
Yes, don't try to shift blame onto an old election ad, that has nothing to do with your own incompetence.
I suggest you do a re-read, because you will find money allocated for the G8 specifically that is being spent on the most ridiculous expenditures, in towns, 50 kilometers from the venue. It's been a farce since the onset.
Wow, so do I read Toews isn't appalled at the notion of deploying they the army in the streets, but just how it might look politically?
If you look back at past Summit's, you'll see that the military is continually used, and last I checked they are all "democracies" as Toews references.
Steve, no blame shifting here, I fully agree that the CPC should be wearing this.
But for a Liberal to ask for soldiers...with guns...in the streets, is just too rich for words.
If they are going to ask for that, I suggest they start with the 6 o'clock news.
"But for a Liberal to ask for soldiers...with guns...in the streets, is just too rich for words."
I think all Canadians would have endorsed soldier, if we knew how this BOONDOGGLE would turn out. Your deflections are beyond lame.
I caught the historic moment on the big tv screen this morning. Epic.
Craig Oliver, I'm sure, must be yucking it up somewhere. Toews must be in his batcave wondering
I'm still giggling at the fact that Blogging tory Craig Smith was blaming Muslims for this...And yanno...I truly don't know whose statement is more outrageous...Smith or Toews...Toews is creeping out in front though...'wife beating' Harpercons now afraid of what Liberals would say???
Certainly not Harper's finest hour.
I was kind of hoping I personally wasn't paying $1B/15M = ~$60 just to host some international leaders. I suggest we let them meet in China. They seem to be doing fine.
Either that, or I can have one of them over for dinner and deduct my food/wine costs from the $60 I owe.
"Canadians understand that in a democracy you have the police rather than the Army in the streets."
So what Toews is saying is the Conservative's use of the army is anti-democratic, at least in the Canadian context. They spend too much time cozying up the military. This is not a healthy approach to law and order.
You mean the police, who are being controlled and subverted by the gun control lobbyiests? In the streets, with guns -- now isn't that ironic.
The CONs twists will eventually give them hernia...
Tomm said...
"But for a Liberal to ask for soldiers...with guns...in the streets, is just too rich for words."
OK are the Grits too spooked by this to make a proper rebuttal?
This dumb ad was cut by the Liberal's own war room and was never supposed to be on air due to it being so preposterously stupid.
But it was leaked and the Reformatories keep hitting you over the heads with something that was never even an official ad.
The only thing stupider is for the Harper government to use a cut, unofficial Liberal ad as their justification to rape the wallets of the Canadian taxpayers for their G8/G20 security boondoggle.
The Harper Government:
Our f#@$-ups are always the Liberal's fault.
So, when the costs started to skyrocket did anyone have the balls to say 'whoa doggy...back up the train.'
Either they are too afraid to speak, or too stupid to know...all in all pretty pathetic for people who are elected to manage our country.
T of,
If the LPC supporters can trot out the dreaded "hidden agenda" every 6 months, I have no problem pulling this out of the vintage collection. At least with the soldiers ad, it was real, created by the Liberal brain trust as their attempt to scare people into voting for them.
Hey wasn't "the hidden agenda" also something made up by the Liberal brain trust to scare people into voting for them.
...am I detecting a pattern here?
Nice.
Hi Tomm,
A three day meeting that is going to cost taxpayers $1.2 billion dollars, is simply not acceptable.
I know, you are a conservative, but really there has to come a point when even hardened conservatives have to stand up, and realize the damage Harper, is inflicting on our nation.
Harper is fiscally reckless, and he blew the bank before the recession even hit, in his futile attempt to buy himself a majority.
He is socially regressive, and an embarrassment to Canada, when he is on the international stage.
How are we going to pay for all these deficits, Harper is going to ring up.
We are now in a structural deficit, created by Stephen Harper, and his complete incompetence on everything.
We have a federal minister of the crown, standing up and saying, that he is spending more taxpayer dollars than is necessary, because the Harper government does not want to be attacked by Liberals.
Harper is supposed to be a strong leader, and yet he always blames everything on the Liberals.
When is Harper going to grow up, and take responsibility, for things that happen on his watch.
That is what leadership is all about.
When are you finally going to say you have had enough of Harper, and his lies, and his incompetence?
I don't know about you Tomm, but the way I see things, Stephen Harper is a complete disaster.
Gallahad,
I agree the price tag is outrageous and should be worn by the CPC. I think I've already said that here.
With respect to Harper being the architect of all the bad things you claim of him, I don't begrudge you your opinion, I just don't happen to agree.
Let's look at your "fiscally reckless" comment. I would argue that cutting taxes in 2006-2008 was part of our robustness in heading into and ultimately rebounding so quickly from the recession.
We see the same facts and draw different conclusions.
A better way to do this is to look ahead. Are you a supporter of a single securities commission? If so, will you support the Harper government in finding a mechanism to make it happen?
Tomm said...
"Are you a supporter of a single securities commission?"
Tomm, I assume you're familiar with the phrase 'even a broken clock is right twice a day'? There are some policies the Harper government has taken the proper stance on. And on this one he's facing an uphill battle with both Alberta and Quebec, both unstable governments who are fighting for their political lives right now. In both cases the provincial governments will boost their approval ratings by opposing this legislation.
Wow, this is something uncharacteristic for Harper; pushing through legislation that's unpopular, but the right thing to do for the overall wellness of the nation. Mulroney did something similar when the GST was created. This is called leadership. Sadly something rare in these days of minority governments.
Still, this doesn't cover up for the fact that the Harper government is spending callously on the G8/G20 security, and blaming the opposition for it because of a dumb, unofficial, leaked advertisement from 5 years ago. Epic Fail!
Harper needs to learn the difference between leadership and hyper-partisan politics ...what am I saying, that's like asking a leopard to change its stripes.
T of,
That's OK. So, everything Harper does that you agree with you are able to discount, and everything he does you disagree with, you magnify.
How about your view of the LPC?
What positions should they be taking? If they don't take those positions are you ready and willing to discount them? If the LPC does something you agree with are you also likely to magnify it?
And you then call Harper "hyper-partisan" as opposed to being a leader?
I disagree.
Post a Comment