12.13.2010 10:01 PM

Power and Politics, Dec. 13: The Reformatory erase-the-border plan

Monte, who was never fussy about the border in the first place, chortles about the secret Harper plan to erase Canada. At the 1:41 mark or so.

30 Comments

  1. Peter says:

    Democrats love to pick on Canada over the northern border because it allows them to look tough on border security without offending base latino voters . Remember two terrorists have already been caught trying to cross the border into the States . There was the millennium bomber crossing on a ferry out in B.C. who was going to blow up LAX and there was another person who was detained trying to get into Vermont from Quebec with some sort of substance . I have to confess I lost track of that story .

    If a terrorist ever did execute a terrorist act after going into the states from Canada we would have a very big problem.

    Most Canadians I don’t think would have a problem with this type of perimeter agreement if it sped things up at the border trade wise .

    I would also like to see an additional step taken . After 911 Prime Minister Chretien asked the privacy commissioner to look at biometric passports , she signed off on using them as a one off verification that the person holding the passport was legit . This would make our passports harder to forge and it would cut down on lot of the nonsense that goes on with Canadian passports around the world . I would gladly an extra $50 for this every 10 years if it made my country more secure .

    Our foreign embassy workers have more important matters to deal with than spending 3 hrs asking someone the name of Lake Ont. , their kids birthday or the name of the subway stop near their house .

    I don’t know the status of the lawsuit between the Sudanese Canadian and the federal government but with a biometric passport a simple thumb scan and then a red or green light would resolved the whole thing .

  2. J. Coates says:

    The Quebecois have a very unkind word for people of Monte’s ilk: “vendu,” which in the vernacular means “sellout.”

    If Monte wants to be a Yank so badly, let him emigrate.

  3. Springer says:

    I am reminded, yet again, of an American politician who, when questioned by a Canadian regarding our sovereignty, said: Ah, yes. Canadian sovereignty. That’s something Canadians can’t define, don’t want to pay for to protect, but are eternally afraid we want to take away.

    That about nails it as superbly as imaginable!

    With all due respect, isn’t it just a tad rich for a party that pretty much defaulted our own national defense onto the US for the last four decades, mostly by savaging our DND to the point “rust out” according to umpteen studies, to pull the “sovereignty” bogey-man out of their unowhats at every politically opportunistic chance?

    Nobody, forget about retired MP Monte Solberg, has a foggy clue in hell what’s in this agreement…nor, as you said yourself, should they.

    Nevertheless, at the mere mention of a pending announcement on a security pact, all the usual (left wing) suspects start howling as if the end of life in Canada as we know it, including the probable demise of beavers, mounties, and hockey moms…you know, basically the sort of hysterics the leaked document cautions, in diplomatic terms, will happen.

    Occurs to me, were we sharing a border with, say f’rinstance, Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, or any of about 150 other nations (that we’re so damned lucky not to be, and a great many of whom only wish in their wildest dreams that they had our problems of living next to America to deal with), yep, probably cause for some concern.

    Stokholm in Sweden just experienced a terrorist attack. In Sweden. Again, SWEDEN!

    God forbid it should ever have to take such an event in our country to finally get people to wake up and smell the coffee with regard to what’s going on out there in the rest of real world, and thus begin to understand exactly what it is that national/perimeter security really is all about.

    • Ted says:

      If is so important and somehow at the same time not that big a deal, why is Harper afraid to have an open and honest debate with Canadians and their representatives about what he is doing?

    • MJH says:

      Very well said! It is true Liberal/NDP hysteria without any knowledge of the terms of the draft agreement. It is opposition for the sake of opposition. Nothing more.

      • Ted says:

        Um no. There is a leaked draft of the agreement. Putting your head in the sand for the sake of putting your head in the sand is no way to support the government or the country.

        • Springer says:

          Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe there’s a leaked draft of the actual agreement, but rather some sort of interoffice communique stating that there is a forthcoming announcement of an agreement, and that gives a heads up, so to speak, regarding to whom this will be of special interest.

          So, in reality nobody has a clue what is actually in the agreement, but rather are merely speculating upon the contents therein based upon nothing more than the mention of said probable interested groups.

          Such heads up alerts are standard procedure. Relative to the subject material, one can expect questions/flack/controversy/hyperventilating/mass protests/and general all around group bed-wetting by all the usual suspects…so everyone get your s**t together and make sure you’re appropriately prepared, ‘ cause we all know, especially when it comes to such subjects as environment/climate change/security/anything whatsoever to do with agreements/pacts/arrangements/treaties/you name it that involves the US of A, the MSM (meaning mostly the CBC) will be flogging this puppy right from the get-go for all it’s possibly worth until hell won’t have any more of it! (Presumably because this sort of sensationalized hysteria is what the CBC thinks 34 million Canadians have a right to expect for their billion dollar subsidy each and every year…)

          Not to mention opposition party MPs/leaders/anyone-who-ever-had-a-membership-ever immediately striving to whip voters into fear induced lathers over obvious implications regarding umpteen dozen possible end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenarios that clearly would never be possible were they the government instead of these idiots/clowns/tyrants, thus firmly taking their responsibility to promote sane and effective public debate by the proverbial horns to ensure that everyone is ready for the absolute worst that’s inevitably coming (at least they certainly hope!) once the documents are finally released.

          Ya see…

          • Namesake says:

            blah blah blah…. Ya know, if you actually asked a q. after all this hectoring, you’d have actually carried out your unholy conbot mission: The Spaniel Inquisition.

            As it is, it’s you who’s hopelessly overblowing (which only makes me think there _is_ something to be feared from this). Far from there being a great hue and cry & mass wringing of hands like you’re claiming, there’s only been a few people raising the perfectly legitimate point that, gee, wouldn’t it behoove a democratic gov’t, particularly a minority one, to share some details about the nature & intent of an upcoming bilateral agreement with our neighbouring country which could affect millions of us that travel & trade with them or have ongoing immigration issues.

            Of the 40 or 50 posts now showing on LibLogs, only 2 concern this topic (incl. this one). http://www.liblogs.ca/

            And NONE of the 30 or so currently appearing on http://www.progressivebloggers.ca/

            But the con-bot response? “Stop talking about it!!! Nothing to see here, folks!! You’re being hysterical again!”

            Free speech, transparency, accountability, democracy, open government, and the CPC… one of these does not belong.

    • Namesake says:

      well, isn’t it pretty rich — or impovershing — that the Gov’t that’s invoked the importance of protecting our sovereignty to justify spending likely $20-B or more on the wrong type of jets that our allies picked for their own needs and want us to buy to subsidize their costs, are now further ceding our country’s independence to them, likely by giving them joint command of our border patrols, governerment internet firewalls and security protocols, and complete access to all our immigration, refugee, and traveller information.

      And this just a few weeks ago after Transport Minister Chuck Strahl indignantly maintained that Canada runs its own security measures, thank you very much, and will never stoop to the intrusive, humiliating and potentially medically dangerous measures that the TSA is outraging people with.

      http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/24/airport-screening-strahl.html

      The actual draft agreement you Cons. are insisting is so benign is at:
      http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/95/e7/631bb42f4aff8d3c8ec59dabdbbf.pdf

    • Namesake says:

      well, isn’t it pretty rich — or impovershing — that the Gov’t that’s invoked the importance of protecting our sovereignty to justify spending likely $20-B or more on the wrong type of jets that our allies picked for their own needs and want us to buy to subsidize their costs, are now further ceding our country’s independence to them, likely by giving them joint command of our border patrols, governerment internet firewalls and security protocols, and complete access to all our immigration, refugee, and traveller information.

      And this just a few weeks after Transport Minister Chuck Strahl indignantly maintained that Canada runs its own security measures, thank you very much, and will never stoop to the intrusive, humiliating and potentially medically dangerous measures that the TSA is outraging people with.

      http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/24/airport-screening-strahl.html

      The actual draft agreement you Cons. are insisting is so benign is at:
      http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/95/e7/631bb42f4aff8d3c8ec59dabdbbf.pdf

  4. Sattva says:

    I really wonder how many Canadians would be upset with a joint perimeter security arrangement with the US. Personally, doesn’t bother me at all. In fact, I like the idea we loosen the Canada/US border but tighten up elsewhere. With respect to the arrangement lessening Canadian sovereignty, how much sovereignty does Canada actually have when it concerns security or opposition to US policy? Lets be honest, if the US government ever so slightly disagrees vehemently with Canada, we tend change our tune. As Pierre Elliot Trudeau put it, we Canadians are sleeping with an elephant.

    • Ted says:

      Sattva, if is such a good thing and so important and yet somehow at the same time not that big a deal, why is Harper afraid to have an open and honest debate with Canadians and their representatives about what he is doing?

      • Peter says:

        I don’t have an exact reference here but both sides have been talking about a joint security perimeter since 911 as a way of keeping trade flowing smoothly . It make sense to do it secertly to avoid having people overeact on both sides . The draft agreement can now go to both cabinets for a review . Adjustments can then be made and then all MPs and the public can see the final product .

        You know after seeing everybody on the left over react and try to stake out the same small piece of the political spectrum , I’m wondering if Stephen Harper didn’t have this draft leaked out on purpose to get the left to flip so that he would again look like the moderate one .

  5. Ted says:

    1:43:47 to be exact.

  6. Ted says:

    Why does Evan always introduce Monte as “a former cabinet minister now a consultant with Fleishman” or simply as “of Fleishman”, while you get no plug for Daisy? You deserve the free publicity at least as much as he does!

  7. MJH says:

    “Erase the Border Plan”!! I am very surprised that Warren would be so melodramatic. This is the kind of over-the-top exaggeration that is READ by the opposition in the H of C.

  8. jay says:

    The Harper Conservatives justified scrapping the long census form out of privacy concerns, but don’t have a problem with ceding private information about Canadians to a foreign government.

    • Namesake says:

      yup; they’ve already waived off their concerns on our behalf on this:

      “Beginning next year, Secure Flight will permit the U.S. to collect the names, genders and birth dates of about five million Canadians who fly through American airspace every year en route to destinations such as the Caribbean and Mexico even though their planes never touch U.S. soil. [Privacy Commissioner Jennifer] Stoddart said airlines would also be required to hand over information such as passport data and itinerary details to the U.S. if it’s available.”

      Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/18/air-passenger-privacy.html

      But in their defense, I guess it’s not actually hypocritical since the Minister on this file (Toews) probably isn’t part of the concerned-about-privacy Twitterverse Tony is so dutifully responsive to.

    • Windsurfer says:

      What would your marketing plan be for getting that information out into the news world?

      Good point.

      People on this blog seem to be the only ones listening.

      And by the way, Warren…. do you have an IGNORE feature here for people who I think, should spend their time over at Blooging Tories?

  9. allegra fortissima says:

    Canadian Sovereignty grants our great country the supreme, independent authority over its own territory and includes the basic principles of territorial integrity, border inviolability and the right of self-determination.

    Talks behind closed doors? No good!

  10. Peter says:

    Warren how do you get picked to go on the air for something like this ? You were obviously there to represent the Liberal point of view but is this how Michael Ignatieff feels ?

    I mean Peggy Nash is president of her party and in contact with Jack Layton , Monte Solberg is a former Cabinet Minister and is still active in the party . You are on the outs with Liberal leadership .

    No offense but I’m just wondering if your poistion is the same as the Liberal poistion and if you get briefed before you go on .

    Is Michael Ignatiff really opposed to his country sharing information with the Canada ?

    • Warren says:

      You’d have to ask CBC why they picked me. I try and say what I think, and perhaps they want that.

      The point of Firing Line is to get people “off the talking points,” as Evan says on every show, so I am quite prepared to do so.

  11. Peter says:

    You know after seeing everybody on the left over react and try to stake out the same small piece of the political spectrum , I’m wondering if Stephen Harper didn’t have this draft leaked out on purpose to get the left to flip so that he would again look like the moderate one .

  12. JH says:

    When all is said and done – the Liberals and Ignatieff will back the new perimiter policy should it become a reality. Most have already supported the idea in one form or another for some time. They are already on the record. I just wish someone would ask Mr. Ignatieff directly what is his position on it. And demand an answer straight up – no waffeling. I think that would end all discussion.

    • Peter says:

      I think you’re right . Its like when they said they’d rip up NAFTA and then went ahead signed it . You might see perimeter defense and the F 35 contract in the new red book . The Liberals know how to run on the left and then govern to the right . Or is it reverse ? I get confused some times .

      Feel free to correct me or comment on it namesake .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*