How incompetant/crooked were the Chretian/Martin administrations?

[Flame On]

Bingo, didn't the industry itself insist the government not take the previous deals, being as they were so terribly lame and really not deals at all?
Not necessarily the fault of the government of the time that it was resolved recently, if the last deal offered was the best and accepted by the industry.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Bingo, didn't the industry itself insist the government not take the previous deals, being as they were so terribly lame and really not deals at all?
Not necessarily the fault of the government of the time that it was resolved recently, if the last deal offered was the best and accepted by the industry.

Doesn't that beg the question... Why were the previous deals so useless and detrimental to the industry?

It truly is amazing how quickly Canada-US relations improve when we aren't calling them morons and *******s.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by peter12

Doesn't that beg the question... Why were the previous deals so useless and detrimental to the industry?

It truly is amazing how quickly Canada-US relations improve when we aren't calling them morons and *******s.

So you're saying the Cons actually did nothing in terms of governing, they just didn't call them morons?

[troutman]

It is ironic how incompetant was spelled.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flame On

So you're saying the Cons actually did nothing in terms of governing, they just didn't call them morons?

No it was just an allusion that as soon as you start acting like a big player, in foreign policy then you start getting results. The childish insults and behaviour of the Chretien and Martin administrations brought has backwards with our largest trading partner.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by peter12

No it was just an allusion that as soon as you start acting like a big player, in foreign policy then you start getting results. The childish insults and behaviour of the Chretien and Martin administrations brought has backwards with our largest trading partner.

Bit of an over simplification of how to get things done in world economics.
"Act" a part and the other country folds its interests? I think not.
Most Canadians, I'm assuming, don't want a yes-man Prime Minister when it comes to America and trade disuputes; many of which we've been ruled as winning by different bodies.
So how do you dispute....disputes with out ruffling some feathers?
I'm not saying they were smart (the Libs) but I don't think the Cons did much in this case except come in very late in a game that was already running.
Could be wrong.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Bit of an over simplification of how to get things done in world economics.
"Act" a part and the other country folds its interests? I think not.
Most Canadians, I'm assuming, don't want a yes-man Prime Minister when it comes to America and trade disuputes; many of which we've been ruled as winning by different bodies.
So how do you dispute....disputes with out ruffling some feathers?
I'm not saying they were smart (the Libs) but I don't think the Cons did much in this case except come in very late in a game that was already running.
Could be wrong.

We also lost several rulings. Compromise was the only way to go.
Why do governments set stmpage fees anyways? Let the free market decide.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by White Doors

We also lost several rulings. Compromise was the only way to go.
Why do governments set stmpage fees anyways? Let the free market decide.

As far as I know Stumpage fees are like royalties are for oil and gas.
There is no free market because the trees all belong to the crown (assuming of course that they are logging crown land, which I'm sure they are).