# The Chuck Cadman Merged Thread



## Bane (27 Feb 2008)

Posted with the usual provisions.



> GLORIA GALLOWAY AND BRIAN LAGHI
> Globe and Mail Update
> February 27, 2008 at 9:48 PM EST
> 
> ...



Full article
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080227.wcadmann0227/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2008)

Given the penchant of the Mop & Pail, and other MSM, to sling dirt, I'll wait to hear both sides before making any considerations. We all know how selective they can make their sound bites.


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

I knew that Harper wanted to the PM badly, I just didnt realize how bad. He certainly was aware of this bribe.


----------



## Yrys (28 Feb 2008)

In the article, he is quote has acknowledging the meeting, but not the details of the offer...



> "Of the offer to Chuck," he quotes Mr. Harper as saying, "it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election, OK. That's
> my understanding of what they were talking about.
> 
> "I don't know the details," he said. "I can tell you that I had told the individuals - I mean, they wanted to do it - but I told them they were wasting their time.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I knew that Harper wanted to the PM badly, I just didnt realize how bad. He certainly was aware of this bribe.



 :

I knew sgf wanted to sling mud badly, I just didn't realize how bad.  She certainly is aware of her posting style.


----------



## stegner (28 Feb 2008)

Sorry I just realized there is already a version of this.  Sorry.


From http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=339195



> Dying MP offered $1M to topple grits: book
> 
> Cadman rejected life insurance deal, author says
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Feb 2008)

One small question: how much do you think the premium would be for a million dollar life insurance policy for a terminally-ill man?


----------



## Rescue Randy (28 Feb 2008)

Old Sweat has nailed it.  This is just a drive by smear.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Feb 2008)

Rescue Randy said:
			
		

> Old Sweat has nailed it.  This is just a drive by smear.



Let's have a little perspective here folks.  The Globe and Mail has not made the allegation - it has merely reported it.  It is the widow who has alledged that there was a bribe.



> I knew sgf wanted to sling mud badly, I just didn't realize how bad.  She certainly is aware of her posting style.



Uncalled for.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Feb 2008)

PPCLI Guy is right. This is not necessarily an attempt at a smear. It is, however, an account of an event that requires deeper research than it seems to have received.


----------



## GUNS (28 Feb 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> One small question: how much do you think the *premium would be for a million dollar life insurance policy * for a terminally-ill man?



a million dollars a month.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> PPCLI Guy is right. This is not necessarily an attempt at a smear. It is, however, an account of an event that requires deeper research than it seems to have received.



I don't think it'll get, or has, much traction. Even my left wing, anti CPC newspaper, buried it on the back page. One small column. The dippers and libs will try make some hay, but I find the lack of details and the timing of the announcement suspect at best.


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

Well I think the timing is to sell books, but this is not a smear, or a drive by or slinging mud.. what was said in the book is the truth. People may not want to admit that but at the end of the day the Tory Party offered a million dollars to Cadman for his vote.


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2008)

I suspect this has been going on and continues to go on throughout all parties of whatever stripe...  that's why they call them backroom deals..


----------



## TCBF (28 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Well I think the timing is to sell books, but this is not a smear, or a drive by or slinging mud.. what was said in the book is the truth. People may not want to admit that but at the end of the day the Tory Party offered a million dollars to Cadman for his vote.



- Prove it.


----------



## Rodahn (28 Feb 2008)

I find it interesting that the globe and mail reports that the Prime Minister knew of the incident with the following

"They were legitimately representing the party," Mr. Harper confirmed. "I said 'Don't press him, I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity, and you know, just, you know, if that's what you say make the case,' but I said 'Don't press it.' "

And now according to this report he is denying the incident

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n022854A.xml


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

> GLORIA GALLOWAY AND BRIAN LAGHI
> 
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> 
> ...





> Prime Minister Stephen Harper is quoted in the book, Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, as confirming that a visit took place, and that officials were "legitimately" representing the Conservative Party. But he says any offer to Mr. Cadman was only to defray losses he might incur in an election.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080227.wcadmann0227/BNStory/Front


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that the globe and mail reports that the Prime Minister knew of the incident with the following
> 
> "They were legitimately representing the party," Mr. Harper confirmed. "I said 'Don't press him, I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity, and you know, just, you know, if that's what you say make the case,' but I said 'Don't press it.' "
> 
> ...



I wonder if the widow would make this up?


----------



## TCBF (28 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I wonder if the widow would make this up?



- Only if she missed out on the money.


----------



## Yrys (28 Feb 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> And now according to this report he is denying the incident
> 
> http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n022854A.xml



I don't read the same thing at the beginning of the article.



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper denied that party agents offered inducements to Chuck Cadman before a vote that could have toppled the former Liberal government in May 2005.
> ...
> But Harper said the independent MP was quoted on national television as saying the only offer he ever received was a Conservative nomination.



He seems to talk about the ,money inducement, not the meeting.


----------



## Haletown (28 Feb 2008)

Wonder if it is just a coincidence that this story is getting hyped & torqued at the same time the book is being launched ? 

I  mean, if I was the author or the publisher, I would consider this to be a gift horse, a herd of gift horses worth of free publicity.

But I am sure it is just a coincidence.

Uh huh, 100% sure.


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> sgf;
> 
> I didn't ask if he was offered compensation for making the trip to Parliament for the vote. I want you to show me definitive proof that he was bribed with a large life insurance fund to buy his vote (the theory you believe).



Does it matter if it was an insurance policy or another form of compensation? If it was indeed an insurance policy, there is something very rotten with the system, because there arent many terminally ill people that get a million dollar insurance policy. If it was compensation for making a trip to Parliment, again a million dollars must buy a lot of airfare. This can be spun many ways, but the facts are, according to the widow, that Tory members offered to buy his vote.  What sort of proof are you looking for?


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Wonder if it is just a coincidence that this story is getting hyped & torqued at the same time the book is being launched ?
> 
> I  mean, if I was the author or the publisher, I would consider this to be a gift horse, a herd of gift horses worth of free publicity.
> 
> ...



I said this earlier, of course this story is breaking now to sell books, but that doesnt negate what happened.


----------



## Yrys (28 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> What sort of proof are you looking for?



Personnally, I would say one of the 2 visitings persons to stand up and confirm it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Does it matter if it was an insurance policy or another form of compensation? If it was indeed an insurance policy, there is something very rotten with the system, because there arent many terminally ill people that get a million dollar insurance policy. If it was compensation for making a trip to Parliment, again a million dollars must buy a lot of airfare. This can be spun many ways, but the facts are, according to the widow, that Tory members offered to buy his vote.  What sort of proof are you looking for?



Show me an insurance company that would allow a million dollar policy to be taken out on a terminally ill person. Or perhaps the insurance is a standard policy for CPC parlimentary members? 

"C'mon back to the party Chuck. You'll get all your perks back, including the funds for re-election to your riding and your million dollar insurance policy that all our members have".

So inducement to return to the fold, not buy his vote. Just another point of view.

There's no proof. Just hearsay evidence, at this point, no matter who it comes from. Your persistence in taking some authors word as absolute proof is laughable. Especially when even leading opposition members are cautioning restraint on the subject.


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

Someone is being spoon fed here, but I dont think its me. Cadman was a very honorable man, and to slag off this man's widow is terrible. Harper said he was aware of the visit 



> After Mr. Cadman's death, Mr. Zytaruk heard that Mr. Harper, who was then leader of the opposition, was paying a personal visit to the Cadman residence. Mr. Zytaruk interviewed Mr. Harper in the driveway.
> 
> "Of the offer to Chuck," he quotes Mr. Harper as saying, "it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election, OK. That's my understanding of what they were talking about.
> 
> "I don't know the details," he said. "I can tell you that I had told the individuals - I mean, they wanted to do it - but I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind he was going to vote with the Liberals. I knew why, and I respected the decision, but they were just, they were convinced there was, there was financial issues and, there may or may not.



If this quote is not true,I hope to see Harper sue the author for slander.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2008)

Like I said. Perhaps simply saying that they would return his perks and status should he vote with, and return to, the CPC. That does not constitute a bribe and conspiracy.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Feb 2008)

SGF

You are being a bit cute here. Harper already has said the visit took place the day of the vote, not two day's before as claimed in the book. We have already decided that the insurance policy claim is a non-starter, or at least most of us have. That leave's the offer to cover Mr Cadman's expenses, which will be no where near one million dollars.

To suggest that the CPC would offer him a million dollars out of their war chest is just plain foolishness. First, it would take a big hunk of cash out of the war chest just before an election and second it violates a few statutes. The money just couldn't disappear from a bank account unnoticed.

This story is verging towards ufology.


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

Then as I said, I fully expect that Harper and the Conservative Party sue the author for slander. Its very interesting that Mrs Cadman had to watch her terminally ill husband being insulted by a bribe shortly before his death,and now be called a liar.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Then as I said, I fully expect that Harper and the Conservative Party sue the author for slander. Its very interesting that Mrs Cadman had to watch her terminally ill husband being insulted by a bribe shortly before his death,and now be called a liar.



And it's amazing she's now running for his riding (IIRC) and never mentioned this until now.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2008)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Uncalled for.



I don't look at it that way.  She has been constantly calling down the Conservatives and the PM in nearly all her posts.  Now she is buying into this conspiracy, even when Mr. Cadman denied any such bribe live on Mike Duffy's CTV broadcast prior to his death.  sgf has been asked for proof that this was a bribe, and she hasn't provided any.    

Even though that broadcast has been rebroadcast on the news, sgf still carries on in this manner:



			
				sgf said:
			
		

> ........ Its very interesting that Mrs Cadman had to watch her terminally ill husband being insulted by a bribe shortly before his death,and now be called a liar.


----------



## Rodahn (28 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't look at it that way.  She has been constantly calling down the Conservatives and the PM in nearly all her posts.



Whether you and I agree, she is entitled to her opinion, and, has the right to voice her opinion. As you in fact point out in your disclaimer.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Whether you and I agree, she is entitled to her opinion, and, has the right to voice her opinion. As you in fact point out in your disclaimer.



I don't mind opinions, as much as I mind absolute accusations of bribery, corruption, etc. without proof as a constant theme to one's posts.  I suspect one of these times she just may be right, just like the kid who constantly called "Wolf", and we will all brush it off or tell her to STFU because we are getting tired of her constant bit**ing and defence of everything Liberal Red.  sgf seems to be a Liberal party hack who is expert at smear tactics, and just doesn't know when to quit.  Almost every post I see her signature on, seems to be the same BS.  One can only take so much.   :


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Feb 2008)

Corruption in goverment is so rare this can't possibly be true  >

But this story is a non starter as no money ever changed hands.


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And it's amazing she's now running for his riding (IIRC) and never mentioned this until now.



and running for the Conservatives.


----------



## Haletown (28 Feb 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> SGF
> 
> You are being a bit cute here. Harper already has said the visit took place the day of the vote, not two day's before as claimed in the book. We have already decided that the insurance policy claim is a non-starter, or at least most of us have. That leave's the offer to cover Mr Cadman's expenses, which will be no where near one million dollars.
> 
> ...



Or belief in Al Gore's Church Of Global Warmology


----------



## sgf (28 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't look at it that way.  She has been constantly calling down the Conservatives and the PM in nearly all her posts.  Now she is buying into this conspiracy, even when Mr. Cadman denied any such bribe live on Mike Duffy's CTV broadcast prior to his death.  sgf has been asked for proof that this was a bribe, and she hasn't provided any.
> 
> Even though that broadcast has been rebroadcast on the news, sgf still carries on in this manner:


I only have what read  what everyone else has, the media reports, the quotes from the widow, from Harper, etc. Who knows why Cadman said what he did, maybe he didnt want to cause a big uproar, maybe he didnt want to deal with the outcome this could cause, during the last few months of his life. I dont speak well of the Conservatives for many reasons, you are right about that George Wallace. There are also many posters here who do not speak well of the Liberals and call them  and Dion down in nearly their posts. Lots of posters defend every thing Tory Blue in their posts. Many posts in here smear Liberals every day as well. If its fine for them, its fine for me.


----------



## stegner (28 Feb 2008)

Anyone accusing Dona Cadman of being vindictive or against the Conservatives is *way outside their lane*.  A simple google search would have turned up that she is the Conservative Party candidate for Surrey North.  





> http://www.donacadman.com



Just because Cadman did not admit that something inappropriate didn't happen doesn't mean something did not.     I would not simply dismiss this as crazy talk.   I would believe his wife over Myriam Bedard who testified at the sponsorship scandal with her word being taken as gospel.  We learn later that she is a bit of a nut to say the least.  For all you asking where the evidence is keep in mind there was no solid evidence that connected any Liberal politician to doing anything illegal with the sponsorship scandal.    Does that mean that they did not nothing wrong?  Guess not.  Let's be consistent with our outrage.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Feb 2008)

Stegner

Thank you for the lawn sprinkler mode analysis of political controversy. 

When exactly did Miriam Bedard accuse anyone of doing anything in the Cadman case? You must have had a reason for raising it. It is too bad that the opposition paries, including the CPC, went into lemming stampede mode over her testimony, but that doesn't mean there is or is not anything to this issue. Let's all wait and see what 24-48 hours brings up. 

I am hitting the pit and will be back on the net sometime after 0700.

Sweet dreams, conspiracy freaks.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Just because Cadman did not admit that something inappropriate didn't happen doesn't mean something did not.



Nor does it prove anyting inappropriate did happen.

As someone has already posted, this is a none event.  We can all have a 'quick' point of view, and by tomorrow, we will all have forgotten about it.  History may sort it out in a few hundred years, when Darcy McGee, like Louis Riel before him (hero status wise), becomes a hero instead of an "enemy of the State".


----------



## stegner (28 Feb 2008)

> Let's all wait and see what 24-48 hours brings up.



Sounds like a plan.  You are wiser than I.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Sounds like a plan.  You are wiser than I Mr. Wallace.



Both of us, as it wasn't me.   ;D


----------



## stegner (28 Feb 2008)

I just edited that now.   It was Old Sweat that I quoted.  You are wise too Mr. Wallace.


----------



## Yrys (29 Feb 2008)

The 24 hours period hasn't pass, so don't comment the following now, but wait for tomorrow...

Scratchy tape begins with Harper request: 'This is not for publication'


----------



## armyvern (29 Feb 2008)

Seems to me that this statement:



> Harper: "But the, uh, the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace *financial considerations he might lose due to an election*."



needs to be expanded upon.

The reporter talks about insurance policies, not the PM.

Those "financial considerations he might lose due to an election" could very well have been (as George suggested), the regular benefits accorded to those elected members with a party ... or not.

The tape does not confirm/nor deny squat.

24 - 48 hours ... still ticking.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Feb 2008)

While this certainly looks bad, the source and timing  raise some red flags, and the fact that all the "evidence" is based on hearsay evidence raises some more. The prudent thing to do is go on listening silence and see if any real evidence comes to light.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Feb 2008)

I'll provide some food for thought from someone who has spent time getting his work published. I am not the author of this BTW



> People write books for a number of reasons, but I wonder how many copies a biography of a deceased local MP, albeit one as principled and motivated as Chuck Cadman would sell.
> 
> There are a number of ways to get a book published.
> 
> ...



It's an aspect we, as a whole didn't really look at, but fell into with our debate, thus fulfilling one of the publisher's three options.

Ergo, really nothing to do whatsoever with the perceived problem...................but simply, all about selling books.


----------



## sgf (29 Feb 2008)

The latest development



> Ms. Cadman, who is running for the Conservatives in her husband's old riding of Surrey North, stood by her story yesterday. In an interview yesterday with CTV, Ms. Cadman said her husband told her "that two gentlemen had visited him, offered him a $1-million life insurance policy and a few other things ... one was being welcomed back into the Conservative party."
> 
> And Mr. Cadman's daughter, Jodi, told CBC News yesterday that her father had told her about the offer.
> 
> "He just said, 'I have something to tell you,' and he told me that he was offered a life insurance policy; that my mom and myself would be taken care of," she said yesterday in Vancouver.



I am glad the RCMP has been asked to investigate and to ensure that there have been no criminal offences committed


----------



## Donut (29 Feb 2008)

Link?

Again, the author of the biography and political candidate is hardly an unbiased source.


----------



## Old Ranger (29 Feb 2008)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Wonder if it is just a coincidence that this story is getting hyped & torqued at the same time the book is being launched ?
> 
> I  mean, if I was the author or the publisher, I would consider this to be a gift horse, a herd of gift horses worth of free publicity.
> 
> ...


 And did I read $500.00 for a copy? You'd need all the hype you could get.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ...
> I am glad the RCMP has been asked to investigate and to ensure that there have been no criminal offences committed



Quite correct, sgf. A serious crime has been *alleged*; it behooves the Crown to investigate, quickly but thoroughly and then, equally quickly, either lay charges or inform the public that no crime has been committed. *After that* process is complete it may be appropriate for the HoC Ethics Committee to do its spastic best.

If, and it is an *IF*, the government, _per se_, is _innocent_ of any criminal activity it may still be appropriate to determine if some _fault_ - related to the ethics of members of parliament and their agents - occurred in this affair. Perhaps some ethical loopholes can be found or, perhaps, the Conservative Party was libelled by the book's author and civil lawsuits might be appropriate, _pour discourager les autres_, so to speak.


----------



## jimb (29 Feb 2008)

I'll just point this out..

ANY sitting Member of Parliament, who dies WHILE IN OFFICE, has his/her pension settlement DOUBLED upon their  death. 

In the Cadman case, if he voted to topple the Government of the day, forcing an election, he was gambling that he would LIVE to be re-elected, and if he wasn't re-elected , his estate, as a former MP,  would be considerably reduced in value. What would you do in his place ? 

Jim B. Toronto.


----------



## stegner (29 Feb 2008)

> Quite correct, sgf. A serious crime has been alleged; it behooves the Crown to investigate, quickly but thoroughly and then, equally quickly, either lay charges or inform the public that no crime has been committed. After that process is complete it may be appropriate for the HoC Ethics Committee to do its spastic best.



Does Parliament need its own investigative agency to deal with the frequent events of political scandal?


----------



## GAP (29 Feb 2008)

jimb said:
			
		

> I'll just point this out..
> 
> ANY sitting Member of Parliament, who dies WHILE IN OFFICE, has his/her pension settlement DOUBLED upon their  death.
> 
> ...



ON Mike Duffy last night it was stated that he told Mike Duffy personnally this was specifically the reason Cadman voted for the Liberals....he knew he was going to die soon, but he wanted to die while in office, thus the benefits to his family....


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Does Parliament need its own investigative agency to deal with the frequent events of political scandal?



Isn't that why we have an 'Ethics' Committee?


----------



## GAP (29 Feb 2008)

I think the Ethics Committee is a perfect example of an oxymoron


----------



## 2 Cdo (29 Feb 2008)

The way I'm reading this is there is an allegation of a bribe to Mr Cadman. He denies on TV that there was a bribe, as does the two men who visited him. Nobody denies that a meeting took place. Now here's where it gets interesting. His widow alleges he was angry about being bribed. She has absolutely no physical proof of a bribe being made and her husband is no longer alive to agree with or refute the allegation. This has no hope in hell of ever being proved in any court, end of story.

I'm not saying 100% that a bribe was not offered just that there is absolutely no way to prove it. As for her motives, I have no clue what would drive a member of a political party to raise an issue that could potentially do great harm to both the PM and the party. 



(Maybe Dosanjhi offered her a cabinet position if the Liberals ever get to form the next government! )


----------



## a_majoor (29 Feb 2008)

We could see some nasty fall out

http://mark-peters.blogspot.com/2008/02/about-that-cadman-insurance-policy.html



> Friday, February 29, 2008
> About that Cadman insurance policy thingy
> 
> If the insurance policy was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election" then it's an absolute non-issue. The Opposition should drop it immediately and get back to opposing.
> ...


----------



## stegner (29 Feb 2008)

> (Maybe Dosanjhi offered her a cabinet position if the Liberals ever get to form the next government! Shocked)



Are we blaming a Conservative quasi-controversy on the Liberals now?    :

So what are the daughters motivations?  She makes the same claim as the mother.  



> I'm not saying 100% that a bribe was not offered just that there is absolutely no way to prove it.



If the allegations are true the alleged offer may have required the drawing up of paperwork.  It is not out of the realm of possibility that the conversation could have been taped.   Lots of very unlikely theoreticals here.


----------



## GAP (29 Feb 2008)

like the daughter is going to contradict mommy dearest.......really


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> So what are the daughters motivations?  She makes the same claim as the mother.



Its her mother for f%#$ sake.........duh.

EDIT: one minute late but I had to clean up my initial reply. ^-^


----------



## stegner (29 Feb 2008)

ditto for Harper on the activities of Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Feb 2008)

What?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Feb 2008)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080229.wcadman29tor/BNStory/National/home

I have no dogs in this fight except that we lost a man far too soon to cancer, but I just read the story in the Globe and I must say this caught my eye,
Mr. Zytaruk, a reporter with a newspaper in Surrey, B.C., was asked by the Cadmans, days before the MP's death, to write the biography.

Maybe the most political explosive thing that Mr. Cadman could have ever been involved in and he didn't mention it to the man that was going to write his bio or put it on paper sooner??

...not to mention that his wife and daughter are making me sick with this, nice legacy you just left for your Father/ Husband, ......that he knew something as slimy as this but did/said nothing?

I hope you both rot.


----------



## Rodahn (29 Feb 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> like the daughter is going to contradict mommy dearest.......really





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Its her mother for f%#$ sake.........duh.



I suppose that you have agreed with everything that your Mother or Father have said? Just because the daughter supports the claim does not mean that it's being done out of blind loyalty IMO.


----------



## stegner (29 Feb 2008)

> I suppose that you have agreed with everything that your Mother or Father have said? Just because the daughter supports the claim does not mean that it's being done out of blind loyalty IMO.



Exactly.  The alleged motivations of the daughter to support the mother are highly analogous to the motivations of Harper who supports Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley when they allege that no impropriety occurred.  If the argument can be made to support one conclusion one must infer that the divergent opinion which uses the exact same argument is also a possibility.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Feb 2008)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> I suppose that you have agreed with everything that your Mother or Father have said? Just because the daughter supports the claim does not mean that it's being done out of blind loyalty IMO.



No, but if I had years to work on the story with either one of them I'm pretty sure we would make sure we marched together.........

I'm not taking any sides on this as we know nothing exept that these two "women" can kiss my #%& for besmerching a man who cannot defend himself.


----------



## scoutfinch (29 Feb 2008)

Why do I feel that if we changed the political affiliations of the leading characters in this story, the most stauch defenders of the Conservatives would be all over it like white on rice?  Forget about political parties and let's look at the facts for a few moments.

Let's face it... at first blush -- it looks bad for the Conservatives... really bad.  Maybe there is more to the story, maybe not.  But as a Canadian tax payer and voter, I deserve to know the whole story.

Honestly, the people posting in this thread sound almost as rabidly partisan as some of our less temperate friends from the south.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Feb 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Honestly, the people posting in this thread sound almost as rabidly partisan as some of our less temperate friends from the south.



Totally agreed, almost makes me think its a good thing we only allow lawyers to be judges......... :cheers:


----------



## scoutfinch (29 Feb 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Totally agreed, almost makes me think its a good thing we only allow lawyers to be judges......... :cheers:


 :cheers:

I hear ya, brother!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Feb 2008)

....almost.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Feb 2008)

What I have to seriously ask, is in what context was the word "insurance" policy used.  Was it as in the purchase of a "Insurance Policy" from an Assurance Company, or was it putting some funds away as "insurance" for a rainy day.  To someone listening to a conversation, from another room and not partaking in the conversation, there is a wide spectrum that interpretations that can be made.  Even in direct conversation, slight nuances may be misinterpreted to mean something completely different.  This could explain why we have Mr. Cadman saying on video one thing and denying allegations of a bribe, and his wife saying something completely different.  Unfortunately, one of the two is no longer with us, so clarification is impossible.


----------



## scoutfinch (29 Feb 2008)

Either way, the offer would be illegal if intended to change his vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Why do I feel that if we changed the political affiliations of the leading characters in this story, the most stauch defenders of the Conservatives would be all over it like white on rice?  Forget about political parties and let's look at the facts for a few moments.
> 
> Let's face it... at first blush -- it looks bad for the Conservatives... really bad.  Maybe there is more to the story, maybe not.  But as a Canadian tax payer and voter, I deserve to know the whole story.
> 
> Honestly, the people posting in this thread sound almost as rabidly partisan as some of our less temperate friends from the south.



Bang on!

I'm a card-carrying Conservative and a regular financial contributor to the Party but the Liberal bashing is getting has gotten pretty thick here.

Liberals are not all ignorant swine and there are very, very few angels on the Tory side of the house.

We have, for the past few years - since about 2000, I think, seen the worst sort of partisan wrangling in our political system - coincident with the rebuilding of the Conservative Party and, consequentially, the end of the Liberal Party's stranglehold on power. It's not pretty but it's the nature of the beast. We saw it during the '80s - many people voted Reform in '93 precisely because they were fed up with poisonous atmosphere in Ottawa and _Parson_ Manning promised to "do politics differently" if he was elected.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Feb 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Either way, the offer would be illegal if intended to change his vote.



but it wouldn't be if it was to entice him to party membership.



WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............WHAT IF.............

Jeez Louise, you guys are worse than the press with an agenda.


----------



## stegner (29 Feb 2008)

> but it wouldn't be if it was to entice him to party membership.



Um no it still will be.   See Criminal Code of Canada



> Corruption and Disobedience
> 
> Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (29 Feb 2008)

*"being a member of Parliament* or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or* attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person*, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity"

lots more "what if"

So if Chuck Cadman decided to vote with the Liberals to keep Parliament alive so would die while still an MP so he could get a double pension hit, did he bribe himself  ?

Did he tell his wife he was doing this for her benefit and is she now covering it up ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Um no it still will be.   See Criminal Code of Canada



Not if they were simply laying out the parameters of the perks available to a member and not promising anything special

"Here's what every member of the CPC gets Chuck"


----------



## TCBF (29 Feb 2008)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> ...  But as a Canadian tax payer and voter, I deserve to know the whole story....



- Actually, no, you don't. The man who could have changed that - Mr Cadman - is unfortunately deceased, and well before his time, too.  Most truths get taken to the grave in one form or another.

- As for the activities of his family, only they can explain that.  However, if Mrs Cadman is indeed seeking the nomination in that riding, the riding association may deem some of her actions highly impolitic.


----------



## stegner (29 Feb 2008)

> Not if they were simply laying out the parameters of the perks available to a member and not promising anything special
> 
> "Here's what every member of the CPC gets Chuck"



Ahh ok.


----------



## sgf (29 Feb 2008)

> ...not to mention that his wife and daughter are making me sick with this, nice legacy you just left for your Father/ Husband, ......that he knew something as slimy as this but did/said nothing?
> 
> I hope you both rot.



What makes me sick, is a political party that would attempt to buy votes. I think thats against the Criminal Code.  Also what makes me ill is how people attempt to deflect blame on the man's family. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080229.wcadman0229/BNStory/National/home



> And on Friday afternoon, Holland Miller, Cadman's son-in-law, told Vancouver radio station CKNW the late MP told him about the alleged Conservative life insurance offer when he returned to British Columbia after the vote.



Now we can add Holland Miller to the list of family members that are lying. 
 Also from the same news piece is this tidbit



> But in a June 12, 2005, radio interview on CKNW, Mr. Cadman told the Globe and Mail's Dan Cook the Conservatives did, in fact, make him financial overtures.
> 
> “There was certainly some, you know, some offers made and some things along those lines about not opposing me and helping out with the finances of the campaign and that sort of thing. But, again, you know, that's all part of the deal that goes on. It's what happens, especially in a minority situation,” Mr. Cadman says.
> 
> Asked how the Conservatives could have allegedly obtained life insurance for Mr. Cadman — who died of cancer two months later — Mr. Holland speculated the party could have paid the cost of the policy.



For a political party that run and won on ethics, its time someone shows some.


----------



## scoutfinch (29 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Actually, no, you don't. The man who could have changed that - Mr Cadman - is unfortunately deceased, and well before his time, too.  Most truths get taken to the grave in one form or another.




Seems to me there were two sides to the conversation with Mr. Cadman...Mr. Cadman and representatives of the Conservative party. Mr. Cadman was no more or less capable of telling the truth than the other parties to the conversation... the question is will they do so? 

And we will have to disagree on whether voters deserve to know... as far as I am concerned it matters not whether Mr. Cadman is deceased, the Canadian electorate still has a right  to know whether elected officials, or their representatives, were involved in illegal activity intended to sway the vote of a member of parliament.  

We'll have to agree to disagree because I suspect there is as much that you could say that would change my mind as there is that I could say to change yours. ;D


----------



## George Wallace (29 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> What makes me sick, is a political party that would attempt to buy votes. I think thats against the Criminal Code.  Also what makes me ill is how people attempt to deflect blame on the man's family.



 :

Well!  You just nailed why I don't vote Lieberal.  

The NDP have never garnered my vote, as most of their candidates have never worked an honest day in a real job in their lives.  Some of the Fringe parties are too out of touch with reality to really be taken seriously, and then there is the BQ whose main aim is the distruction of Canada.  

I guess that doesn't leave much left.


----------



## sgf (29 Feb 2008)

and this latest story confirms why I would never vote for Harper.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> and this latest story confirms why I would never vote for Harper.



 ;D

But you voted for Chretien.  If you were in ON, you probably voted for Lying Dalton McGinty.  Oh well.  I think we are getting away from the days of Lieberal graft and patronage.  We needed the change, and perhaps we can get the country back on track, once people start to realize what that party has destroyed.


----------



## sgf (29 Feb 2008)

Liberal graft and patronage? There is no patronage in this government? You dont really believe that do you George Wallace. I have said many times that the Liberal government certainly was not perfect, and after the last few days my belief is confirmed that this government is certainly not perfect either, and that the Tories would have done anything to gain power.  At least I realize that all the political parties are basically the same. Harper ran on a having a different government, obviously thats not true.


----------



## 2 Cdo (29 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Are we blaming a Conservative quasi-controversy on the Liberals now?    :



I guess you failed to see my sarcasm. :



> So what are the daughters motivations?  She makes the same claim as the mother.



What others have already said. :'(



> If the allegations are true the alleged offer may have required the drawing up of paperwork.  It is not out of the realm of possibility that the conversation could have been taped.   Lots of very unlikely theoreticals here.


 

If you honestly believed there was tape, it would already be public. The widow and her daughter seem to have an agenda, but only they know what it is at this time. 

Again, for the slow-witted ones here. Maybe the wife has been approached by other parties with offers if she helps sabotage the CPC and PM Harper. This is called an _allegation_ as it offers no proof, the same as any statement by either wife or daughter.  


[/quote]


----------



## 2 Cdo (29 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> What makes me sick, is a political party that would attempt to buy votes.



And you still vote Liberal? Where was your outrage at Belindas cabinet position with absolutely zero experience? Or is your outrage solely aimed at the CPC and your percieved notions of wrongdoing, as opposed to Liberal party actual wrong doings. :


----------



## stegner (29 Feb 2008)

> Belindas cabinet position with absolutely zero experience?



Belinda was an executive at a multi-billion dollar company before joining the Cabinet.  



> opposed to Liberal party actual wrong doings. Roll Eyes



*Alleged *Liberal party wrong doing.  Where is the proof that a Liberal MP did any wrong doings?


----------



## 2 Cdo (29 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Belinda was an executive at a multi-billion dollar company before joining the Cabinet.



Why was Belinda an executive of a multi-billion dollar company? 

That's right, she was the token female figurehead because DADDY owned the company. She quit because she wanted to be the leader of the CPC. When that failed she jumped at the offer of a cabinet position, because she felt she was entitled to some degree of power as opposed to being a back-bencher. But she quit that position as well because she couldn't hide behind daddys coattails when her incompetence was revealed. 

Nice try, but next time try to have all the pertinent info before offering an answer.


----------



## DBA (29 Feb 2008)

Heresay statements (not evidence yet as no statements have been made under oath) from third parties one way are not convincing given the principle in question made statements that were recorded and are still available the other way. Absent more evidence there is nothing here, and calling for the guilty to confess smacks of a kangaroo court because it assumes guilt. Being able to face an accuser is also a basic principle of our justice system. 

The only thing that seems fairly certain is Cadman's family says he said a bribe attempt took place while Cadman himself publically said one didn't. A recording of the second still exists. The conflict between the two is obvious as somebody has to be lying or not factually correct.


----------



## stegner (29 Feb 2008)

> When that failed she jumped at the offer of a cabinet position, because she felt she was entitled to some degree of power as opposed to being a back-bencher.



She left because her and Stephen Harper were not getting along.  



> But she quit that position as well because she couldn't hide behind daddys coattails when her incompetence was revealed.



Any proof of that?


----------



## sgf (29 Feb 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> And you still vote Liberal? Where was your outrage at Belindas cabinet position with absolutely zero experience? Or is your outrage solely aimed at the CPC and your percieved notions of wrongdoing, as opposed to Liberal party actual wrong doings. :



I do still vote Liberal. Will you still vote Conservative if this bribe is proven? Will you still vote Conservative if the RCMP lay charges or the Ethics Committe find wrong doing? Sure you will. 
Belinda did not have any cabinet experience, but she sure had a lot of experience in running a multi million dollar business so i would say she was very able in running any Department  Martin put her in. I have said many times here but you must have missed it; I realize that the Liberals are not perfect and did many things that I did not think were right. 
BTW, nice attempt in dragging Belinda into this topic but lets attempt to remain focused on the the bribery attempt.


----------



## sgf (29 Feb 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Why was Belinda an executive of a multi-billion dollar company?
> 
> That's right, she was the token female figurehead because DADDY owned the company. She quit because she wanted to be the leader of the CPC. When that failed she jumped at the offer of a cabinet position, because she felt she was entitled to some degree of power as opposed to being a back-bencher. But she quit that position as well because she couldn't hide behind daddys coattails when her incompetence was revealed.
> 
> Nice try, but next time try to have all the pertinent info before offering an answer.



well for someone that got ahead because of her father she did pretty good. This is from Wiki



> In 2001, the National Post named Stronach as the most powerful businesswoman in Canada; and, in the same year, the World Economic Forum named her a "Global Leader of Tomorrow". Fortune Magazine ranked her #2 in its list of the world's most powerful women in business in 2002. She was also named one of Canada's "Top 40 Under 40". In April 2004, Time Magazine ranked her as one of the world's 100 most influential people.



Speaking of Fathers coattails, Peter MacKay has done pretty good hasnt he. I wonder if his father had anything to do with that? Belinda announced she was leaving politics in April 07 and in Jun 07, she was diagonsed with breast cancer. That probably had something to do with her leaving politics. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_Stronach


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> *Alleged *Liberal party wrong doing.  Where is the proof that a Liberal MP did any wrong doings?



And with the subject of this thread:

*Alleged *CPC party wrong doing.  Where is the proof that a CPC member did any wrong doings?  

Good for the goose, pot this is kettle and all that. Your righteous indignation has just come home to roost. You have no proof of what your alleging, save hearsay. That's also only whatever anyone else has. You can allege all you want, but if you have no proof of what took place, except for conjecture and hearsay from the MSM and family, don't puff up here and state your rumour as fact.


----------



## sgf (29 Feb 2008)

Where is the proof that a CPC party member did not do any wrong doing? If there never took place, I would think that the Tories would be falling all over themselves pointing this out.


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Where is the proof that a CPC party member did not do any wrong doing? If there never took place, I would think that the Tories would be falling all over themselves pointing this out.



Okay, I've stayed out of this one up til I read this piece of drivel.  Prove they didn't do anything wrong?  You are aware that in our democratic society, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, aren't you?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Where is the proof that a CPC party member did not do any wrong doing? If there never took place, I would think that the Tories would be falling all over themselves pointing this out.


You've been spinning your wheels for awhile now, using the same tired argument, and you're still spinning them. The onus of proof of evidence rests with the accuser, not the defendant. If you can't provide it beyond a reasonable doubt, you have no case. Once again, the onus is on you to provide evidence of wrongdoing. Not us to provide proof nothing happened.

I suggest, if you can't provide real proof, instead of rumour and innuendo as the MSM and family is, you have no case and are just slinging feces. Perhaps you should take a breather and we can all walk away from this until something substantial is released, one way or the other.

This is getting pretty close to a temporary lock, until something REAL & SUBSTANTIAL does come out. I'm sure a non participating Mod will be along shortly.


----------



## scoutfinch (29 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Speaking of Fathers coattails, Peter MacKay has done pretty good hasnt he. I wonder if his father had anything to do with that?



Probably not.  Peter MacKay was a Crown Prosecutor in Pictou County long before he was elected.  He was elected to Parliament by the citizens of Pictou County.  He was not placed in Parliament or nominated to any Board of Directors by his father.

Maybe you better start comparing apples to apples instead of apples to -- oh, I dunno -- handgrenades. :


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Feb 2008)

The plot thickens a bit - seems a BC radio station has dug up bits of an interview they did with Mr. C in 2005.  As much as I take MSM with a grain of salt, it appears we have the words of the man (or at least some of them) out there now - bit of a summary of the rest of the stuff to date as well.  Shared with the usual disclaimer....

*New evidence emerges in case of alleged financial offer to dying MP*
Canadian Press, 29 Feb 08
Article link

OTTAWA — The voice of a cancer-stricken MP who died months after a historic confidence vote came back to haunt the Conservatives on Friday after a three-year-old radio interview surfaced in which Chuck Cadman says party officials made him financial overtures.

In a June 12, 2005, interview on Vancouver radio station CKNW, Cadman said the Tories did, in fact, make him financial offers days before the crucial vote.

*"There was certainly some, you know, some offers made and some things along those lines about not opposing me and helping out with the finances of the campaign and that sort of thing. But, again, you know, that's all part of the deal that goes on. It's what happens, especially in a minority situation," Cadman says.*

The interview lent credence to claims from Cadman's family that the terminally ill Independent MP - on whose shoulders rested the fate of Paul Martin's Liberal government - told them Tory officials allegedly offered him a $1-million life insurance policy in exchange for his support.

Cadman's widow, Dona - a Conservative candidate - said her husband was livid at the alleged offer, which she said she considered a bribe.

Cadman's daughter, Jodi, also said her late father made a deathbed admission about the alleged $1-million life insurance policy offer and other enticements.

And on Friday afternoon, Holland Miller, Cadman's son-in-law, told CKNW the late MP told him about the alleged Conservative life insurance offer when he returned to British Columbia after the vote.

Author Tom Zytaruk taped an interview with Harper in September 2005 for his soon-to-be-released biography of Cadman. On the scratchy 2:37 recording, Harper confirms party officials made a financial appeal to Cadman.

"The offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election," Harper says.

Harper said while he wasn't optimistic about their chances of persuading Cadman - a former Tory MP who had left the party to sit as an Independent MP - to vote with the Conservatives to bring down Martin's government, he urged two people "legitimately representing the party" to tread cautiously.

"I said 'Don't press him, I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity, and you know, just, you know, if that's what you're saying make that case,' but I said, 'Don't press it'."

Not clear is what exactly the Conservative insiders offered Cadman. The Tories insist that Doug Finley and Harper mentor Tom Flanagan only offered to take Cadman back into the party fold.

Asked what financial considerations Harper was talking about on the tape, and what case did he tell the party emissaries to make, the prime minister's communications director ducked the questions.

In an e-mail to The Canadian Press, Sandra Buckler said the tape - which the publisher of the book was selling for $500 a copy - is an excerpt of a longer interview between the prime minister and Zytaruk.

"We are deeply concerned that an edited excerpt of a taped conversation between Mr. Harper and the book's author is being bootlegged for five hundred bucks a pop by the author. We call on the author to provide Canadians with a complete, unedited audio copy of the author's conversation - from start to finish - with Mr. Harper."

Buckler did not reply to a second e-mail asking her to respond to the two original questions.

(....)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Feb 2008)

Sorry Tony, this isn't new. This has already been through the wash, there still is no proof of wrongdoing. I may be wrong, but I don't think there's anything illegal about party supporters, or the party, helping out financially with a campaign. If that's the best they can do, they've already lost this one.



> In an e-mail to The Canadian Press, Sandra Buckler said the tape - *which the publisher of the book was selling for $500 a copy* - is an excerpt of a longer interview between the prime minister and Zytaruk.
> 
> "We are deeply concerned that *an edited excerpt of a taped conversation between Mr. Harper and the book's author is being bootlegged for five hundred bucks a pop by the author*. We call on the author to provide Canadians with a complete, unedited audio copy of the author's conversation - from start to finish - with Mr. Harper."



These two paragraphs say more about what this is all about, than anything else that's been said on the whole subject.


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Mar 2008)

Sent along by dog walker:

Another piece of the puzzle came up on Mike Duffy live on CTV news net last night. 

One of the perks of the MP’s job is their life insurance policy. If one passes away as a sitting MP there is quite a large insurance payout. An MP who is no longer sitting in parliament can keep their life insurance, however, the premiums go up and the payout is cut in half.  If Paul Martin’s liberal government had being defeated and the parliament dissolved then Mr Cadman would no longer have being a sitting MP and his family would have lost out on the MP’s insurance policy. 

The piece can be found on the link below, under Mike Duffy Live on the right of the page. Click on the video piece entitled “Mike Duffy Live: MP James Moore Discuss Harper’s Involvement in Cadman Controversy”

http://www.ctv.ca/politics


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Mar 2008)

... and from Yrys:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080229/national/cadman_life_insurance



> Near impossible to get $1 million insurance policy for terminally ill: industry
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Mar 2008)

Unlocked for now.

Please stick to the topic, keep it civil, leave wild unsubstantiated claims out of it. Next time it will be locked for good.

Thanks in advance.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## Trinity (1 Mar 2008)

http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/the-rest-of-the-audio-tape.html

Our friend Ezra has a good opinion on the subject at hand.



> he rest of the audio tape
> By Ezra Levant on February 29, 2008 10:03 PM | Permalink | |
> 
> Can the late Chuck Cadman do what Stephane Dion can't, and end the Liberals' annus horribilis? Liberal MP Garth Turner thinks so. He is even talking about bringing down the government. (But then Turner does that from time to time.)
> ...




http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/standards-of-accuracy-at-liber.html


> andards of accuracy at Liberal Caucus Research
> By Ezra Levant on February 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Permalink | |
> 
> I can understand why the Liberals have embraced the Chuck Cadman allegations -- or, more accurately, third-hand allegations, three years after the fact, when the man in question is deceased. Anything to change the channel from their budget debacle. You've really got to listen to the fogginess of the allegations here to understand what we're dealing with. Add in the facts that:
> ...


----------



## sgf (2 Mar 2008)

Interesting Article from the Chronicle Herald 



> IN MAY 2005, the government of Paul Martin was careening toward its doom.
> 
> The worst revelations of the Gomery inquiry were still fresh and the Conservatives, newly unified and fired by righteous indignation, were desperate to bring Mr. Martin down before Canadians’ outrage faded.
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (2 Mar 2008)

Firstly, who would sell a dying man a $1,000,000 insurance policy? 

Secondly, would an experienced insider like Tom Flanagan - a political science professor, be crazy enough to risk five years in jail under Section 121 of the Criminal Code?


----------



## DBA (2 Mar 2008)

> Nobody can doubt that Mr. Cadman privately told his family that the Tories did that. The Cadmans have no reason to lie. And why would Mr. Cadman make up a story like that, a story that was very painful to the people he loved the most?



People lie all the time without a real reason to even when it's to their own and others detriment. Even the innocent often lie to save face, cover-up embarrassing facts or out of fear they will be accused of wrongdoing. I find the "no reason to lie" arguement a very thin and inadequate attempt to try and puff up heresay.


----------



## sgf (2 Mar 2008)

I agree people lie all the time for many reasons. In this case, its all pure speculation as to who is lying and why. People need to form their own opinions on the reasons for this lie, what makes the most sense.


----------



## McG (2 Mar 2008)

Several foolish posts bickering over the title of the Chronical Post article have been clean out of the thread.  For those who need it to sleep at night, the article posted in reply # 108 by sgf is:

LETTER FROM OTTAWA 
by STEPHEN MAHER
Sat. Mar 1 - 4:47 AM

Now lets grow up & stop being silly.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Mar 2008)

I'm strating to wonder why the Liberals dredged up this whole affair, without realizing the blow-back that would certainly occur over Stronach crossing the floor at the same time and Dosanj clearly trying to buy Grewal's vote with a cabinet seat.

This whole episode is a sorry commentary on our political system...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2008)

Loyalty, ignorance and fabrication can be be bought from anyone. As with anything in life, it's all for sale. You only have to meet the seller's price. Who knows what provoked Mrs Cadman her daughter and son in law to state what they did. Lies, misunderstanding, miscommunication, exaggeration..... the truth? There's only one person that can answer that question, and he can't. I'm sure if physical evidence existed, it would have been hauled out by now.

As to the author of the, already dead in the water bio, all the controversy is only good, _unpaid for_, publicity. It adds to the profits garnered from the $500.00 a copy, edited tape of an interview. Probably not much more than he will receive in royalties from his litterbox liner. 

Non of the sitting parties in government have a lock on ethics, but quite the opposite. Personally, given how our elected officials from all stripes conduct themselves, I'm surprised anyone is even worrying about this.

Unless absolute proof surfaces, I give this story one more week. Longer if the grits can convince the RCMP to get involved, but only until they realise they don't have RPG (reasonable probable grounds).

Wait for it.


----------



## sgf (2 Mar 2008)

This book is being sold for $500 a copy? Where did that information come from?  As a matter of fact, you can download it online for free

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29515&Itemid=41


----------



## Yrys (2 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It adds to the profits garnered from the $500.00 a copy, edited tape of an interview.



What I read from recceguy  post is that the tape is $500, not the book ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> This book is being sold for $500 a copy? Where did that information come from?  As a matter of fact, you can download it online for free


You're so hell bent on defending your unsubstantiated stance you can't even read straight. Try again:



> It adds to the profits garnered from the $500.00 a copy, edited tape of an interview.



BTW, I'm not debating you in this thread, just giving my opinion on the subject. I will not give you an excuse, or platform, to regurgitate what you've been trying to imply without proof. Please don't engage me again unless you understand what I've said and have substantiation (does not include the MSM and other hack journalists) for what you state as fact.


----------



## sgf (2 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> What I read from recceguy  post is that the tape is $500, not the book ...



Thank you, I obviously misunderstood his post.


----------



## stegner (2 Mar 2008)

Nonetheless, this must be duly investigated just as the Grewal and Goodale incidents were.  The result will most likely be the same as those investigations which found no wrong doing.  There are many similarities to the Grewal case including allegations that the tape had been edited or altered.   Nice to know that are political system is so accountable and honest that there is a play-book for such occasions.


----------



## GAP (3 Mar 2008)

Harper files notice of libel over Cadman allegations
CTV.ca News Staff Updated: Mon. Mar. 3 2008 10:14 AM ET 
Article Link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed a notice of libel against Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and other top Liberals over allegations they've made about him in the Chuck Cadman affair.

Robert Fife, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief, told Newsnet that Dion was served this morning at his Stornoway residence in Ottawa.

"The prime minister is not only suing the Liberal leader, he's suing the deputy leader, Michael Ignatieff; Ralph Goodale, who is the House leader; and the Liberal Party of Canada," he said.

"Mr. Harper's notice of libel says they've accused him of knowing about Conservative bribery in the Cadman affair," he said.

Harper said the allegations, made outside the House of Commons and on the Liberal party's website, are false and misleading. He is asking for an immediate retraction, Fife said.

The notice asks for two allegedly defamatory articles to be removed from the liberal.ca website and provides wording for an apology to be read out by Dion in the House of Commons. The notice requests the apology be given in English and French.

If the Liberals don't provide an apology, the Conservatives want the Liberals to preserve all records and email traffic, Fife said.

Last week, a new book made the claim that former Conservative MP Chuck Cadman was essentially offered financial inducements by Conservative party officials to vote down the Liberal government's 2005 budget.
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Mar 2008)

Good for him !!


----------



## char9409 (3 Mar 2008)

Go to:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=TopStories&video_link_high=http://esi.ctv.ca/datafeed/urlgen2.aspx?vid=34904&video_link_low=raw_harper&clip_start=00:00:00.00&clip_end=00:02:33.00&clip_caption=Raw%20interview%20between%20Stephen%20Harper%20and%20Tom%20Zytaruk&clip_id=34904&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20080228&slug=cadman_bribe_AM_080228&archive=CTVNews

To here the actual interview. The liberals are accusing him of knowing about the Cadman 'bribery'.


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Good for him !!



Yes indeed!!!

The Liberals are not a party I'd wish to belong to if I had to stand up and call someone a liar!


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2008)

After this train wreak, will Micheal Ignatieff, Bob Rae or Justin Trudeau be willing to take over as leader of the Liberals?


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> After this train wreak, will Micheal Ignatieff, Bob Rae or Justin Trudeau be willing to take over as leader of the Liberals?



Isn't the Liberal ideal to take responsability from the people and give it to gov't, or is it to creat more gov't in a never ending spiral of fiscal justification and spending...?

Either way I for one would be more than happy to do without them as a party. 

And to think that they, of all political parties, would be out there calling someon a liar...Why that's just like the poit calling the kettle...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Mar 2008)

I see Mrs. Cadman has just released a statement saying that she was told by Stephen Harper after her husband died that he knew nothing of any offer and she has always believed that.

She stated that if she thought he was involved she wouldn't be running for the Conservatives.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2008)

Just listened to the _edited_ tape conversation. There's nothing there. If that's all they've got on the CPC, the liberals are screwed.

I think after this one bites them in the ass, a rabid rhesus monkey could run against Dion and win.


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just listened to the _edited_ tape conversation. There's nothing there. If that's all they've got on the CPC, the liberals are screwed.
> 
> I think after this one bites them in the ***, a rabid rhesus monkey could run against Dion and win.



Of course it would have to be a *FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE * rabid rhesus monkey that was in the running! After all the money the Liberals spent wasted on the gun registry and other less signifigant programs I don't think the Canadian people are willing to have anyone else waste our money like they did!


----------



## TCBF (3 Mar 2008)

- The present govmint is STILL wasting money on the gun registry.  They are STILL not abiding by a library of parliament paper that clearly states Bill C-10A does NOT inhibit the ability of Prohib owners to take their FA to the range. Contrary to what the CPFOs have been instructed to tell us.


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2008)

Yep...No matter who's in power the registry will die a slow death. No doubt about it...My point is that ti's not and never will be a truely Conservative mess...but more a Liberal one that the Conservatives have to clean up!

I believe that their ownly roadblock to doing so is the demographics of southern ontario and SaltSpring Island in B.C. ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Mar 2008)

> I believe that their ownly roadblock to doing so is the demographics of southern ontario and SaltSpring Island in B.C.



Easy, Slim- Salt Spring Island is nowhere near the monolithic leftist utopia that many imagine.  Where do you think that wealthy, voting Albertans go to retire?


----------



## aesop081 (3 Mar 2008)

Just saw the whole mess on TV........ :

Controversy sells books.

The Liberals, after backing down over Afghanistan and the budget, are grasping at straws.

Even Cadman's widow is saying that Harper didnt know about any offers.......


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Mar 2008)

This could cost the Liberal Party a real wack of money if the libel suit against them goes anywhere...unless they have an ace up their sleeves they have not played yet- which I doubt.

Sure- call the Conservatives whatever you want in Parliament where you are protected from libel laws...but claiming on your Party website that Harper engaged in or knew about bribery... that's just dumb!


----------



## stegner (3 Mar 2008)

> This could cost the Liberal Party a real wack of money if the libel suit against them goes anywhere...unless they have an ace up their sleeves they have not played yet- which I doubt.



I don't think this will cost the Libs a lot of money.  Though I have been wrong before.   It is rather unprecedented for a Prime Minister to sue a Leader of the Opposition and the courts might not be pleased with Harper's attempt to place political revenge in the courts.  Let's face it, if the Liberals wanted to go back and examine what Conservative members have said about Liberals around the time of the Sponsorship scandal or other recent incidents, much of which was never substantiated with hard evidence, they would have an equal case for libel action.  Harper should not be taking a page out of the Brian Mulroney play book by suing people.   As Prime Minister he should refuse to dignify the Liberal accusations with a response other than to point to possible RCMP investigation and place the office above affronts to his personal dignity.  The threat of lawsuit will only beget more lawsuit and further contribute to the horrendous decorum of our Parliamentary institutions.   This is a very slippery slope if politicians begin to sue one another.   Maybe Chretien will think he was libeled by Harper & Co. about Shawnigate?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2008)

So you are literally saying that the Prime Minister no longer has the rights of the common Canadian citizen to file a Slander Suit?


----------



## aesop081 (3 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> if the Liberals wanted to go back and examine what Conservative members have said about Liberals around the time of the Sponsorship scandal or other recent incidents, much of which was never substantiated with hard evidence, they would have an equal case for libel action.



Dion and his gang will do no such thing. In case you hadn't noticed, they lack the backbone to take decisive action or even to stick to their own retoric. Even the NDP today in question period, had more sense than to embarass itself by asking Cadman-related questions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I don't think this will cost the Libs a lot of money.  Though I have been wrong before.   It is rather unprecedented for a Prime Minister to sue a Leader of the Opposition and the courts might not be pleased with Harper's attempt to place political revenge in the courts.  Let's face it, if the Liberals wanted to go back and examine what Conservative members have said about Liberals around the time of the Sponsorship scandal or other recent incidents, much of which was never substantiated with hard evidence, they would have an equal case for libel action.  Harper should not be taking a page out of the Brian Mulroney play book by suing people.   As Prime Minister he should refuse to dignify the Liberal accusations with a response other than to point to possible RCMP investigation and place the office above affronts to his personal dignity.  The threat of lawsuit will only beget more lawsuit and further contribute to the horrendous decorum of our Parliamentary institutions.   This is a very slippery slope if politicians begin to sue one another.   Maybe Chretien will think he was libeled by Harper & Co. about Shawnigate?



There's a difference in what they say in Parliment where they're protected, but once they step out of chambers, they have to follow the same rules as you or I. They didn't and now are in a position to be sued. They don't seem to be any better at being the lawyers they are, as the politicians they play at.


----------



## stegner (3 Mar 2008)

> So you are literally saying that the Prime Minister no longer has the rights of the common Canadian citizen to file a Slander Suit?



Indeed not.  But Harper is hardly the first Prime Minister to be slandered. Perhaps, this will inspire Jean Chretien and Paul Martin to follow suit? 



> There's a difference in what they say in Parliment where they're protected, but once they step out of chambers, they have to follow the same rules as you or I. They didn't and now are in a position to be sued. They don't seem to be any better at being the lawyers they are, as the politicians they play at.



I fully appreciate this.  My point is that the Conservatives could be interpreted to have libeled Liberals on occasion for their actions and words outside the House.  Hence, the slippery slope.  This is a bad precedent of MP's suing MP's.  Solve your problems in the House ladies and gents.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Mar 2008)

> fully appreciate this.  My point is that the Conservatives could be interpreted to have libeled Liberals on occasion for their actions and words outside the House.  Hence, the slippery slope.  This is a bad precedent of MP's suing MP's.  Solve your problems in the House ladies and gents.



But this is precisely the problem- IIRC, the Conservatives coasted up the line of libel, without actually crossing into territory that would get a court very upset.  The Liberals appear to have strategically blundered- they have accused a sitting PM of a criminal offence.  They didn't say "Harper allegedly knew of bribe" - they say he did know of bribe. This may be construed as libel.

Go visit the two websites:
www.liberal.ca
www.conservative.ca

See the difference in style.  Sure, the Conservatives make Mr Dion look like a buffoon, but they don't accuse him of criminal activity.

BTW, I'm not arguing as a partisan of a particular party- I'm just fascinated how the Liberals are blowing what three days ago seemed like the issue to bury the Conservatives.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Mar 2008)

I for one am tired of politicians behaving as if they feel free to throw around poorly supported allegations.  If the people who are supposed to be in charge can't behave as decently as any ten of my acquaintances picked at random, no one should be in charge.


----------



## stegner (3 Mar 2008)

> But this is precisely the problem- IIRC, the Conservatives coasted up the line of libel, without actually crossing into territory that would get a court very upset.  The Liberals appear to have strategically blundered- they have accused a sitting PM of a criminal offence.  They didn't say "Harper allegedly knew of bribe" - they say he did know of bribe. This may be construed as libel.
> 
> Go visit the two websites:
> www.liberal.ca
> ...



I see your point and yield to it.  I still do not like the fact of the PM suing MP's when he should only be suing the Liberal Party for its website.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I see your point and yield to it.  I still do not like the fact of the PM suing MP's when he should only be suing the Liberal Party for its website.



Let us not forget that Dion sued Duceppe for libel himself....


----------



## stegner (4 Mar 2008)

> Let us not forget that Dion sued Duceppe for libel himself....



Yes you are right.  But Duceppe is a separatist.  That is my excuse and it's not a very good one.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> But Duceppe is a *separatist* elected representative in the House of Commons, just like Mr Dion


----------



## stegner (4 Mar 2008)

> But Duceppe is a* separatist *elected representative in the House of Commons, just like Mr Dion



Indeed


----------



## Cheshire (4 Mar 2008)

When will the doe doe Liberals stop digging up garbage that happend years ago, and start talking about relevant, up to date, current issues that affect Canadians? 

If the Liberals have not noticed, the Mulroney affair happend years ago. As did this Cadman issue. If you ask me, they are just looking to dig up dirt to sling in the governments eye, and when they falter, just the slightest, the doe doe Liberals will strike down some silly piece of legislation, and call for an election. 

I think Liberal tactics are going to backfire, and eventually they will loose the confidence of some of their support. My parents would always vote liberal, and in taking to them over the weekend, they are changing their tune should the next election come about. And there reasoning is the crime bill, and money being spent on the forces. My dad being and ex RCR man. 

Liberals, you are losing votes, and the Chuck Cadman non-issue, that you claim to be an issue, is why you will loose votes.


----------



## stegner (4 Mar 2008)

Well in fairness when the sponsorship scandal broke it was not exactly recent either.  Should it have not been investigated?


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2008)

Other first person accounts of how the CPC operates:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/how-do-tom-flanagan-and-stephe.html



> *How do Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper negotiate?*
> By Ezra Levant on March 4, 2008 2:01 AM | Permalink | Comments | Trackback
> 
> It's a question that has come up as a result of Cadscam. Do they offer bribes? Here's a column I wrote for today's National Post that describes my experience negotiating with the two men:
> ...


----------



## sgf (4 Mar 2008)

Don Martin had this interesting article in todays National Post


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=350818



> OTTAWA -Prime Minister, answer the damned question.
> 
> Precisely what "financial considerations" were you talking about in admitting knowledge of a Conservative party approach to Independent MP Chuck Cadman prior to the 2005 vote to topple the Liberals?
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Ranger (4 Mar 2008)

Cheshire said:
			
		

> I think Liberal tactics are going to backfire, and eventually they will loose the confidence of some of their support.



I really hope so in Ontario, maybe some of you Westerners could take up residence in Ontario at least for the next vote.
We would probably need to host a really big BBQ/3 gun match for the duration ;D


----------



## JBG (5 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Given the penchant of the Mop & Pail, and other MSM, to sling dirt, I'll wait to hear both sides before making any considerations. We all know how selective they can make their sound bites.


And how does one insure the life of a terminally ill cancer patient weeks before death? The benefits of sustaining th egovernment and thus dieing if office were themselves immense.

Who bribed who?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> And how does one insure the life of a terminally ill cancer patient weeks before death? The benefits of sustaining th egovernment and thus dieing if office were themselves immense.
> 
> Who bribed who?



I hope you write your law briefs better than that question. I still don't understand it, but I think I get the gist. 

If you'd bothered to read the whole thread, you'd find I asked the same question, about purchasing a policy, once more info became available.


----------



## JBG (5 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I hope you write your law briefs better than that question. I still don't understand it, but I think I get the gist.
> 
> If you'd bothered to read the whole thread, you'd find I asked the same question, about purchasing a policy, once more info became available.


Sorry for the typos. I was tired. Long day's work.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2008)

Is the Cadman affair really even a scandal? Recent history would seem otherwise (assuming the allegations are true)

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=353565



> *MPs have been bought before and for lesser cause*
> 
> Don Martin, National Post  Published: Wednesday, March 05, 2008
> 
> ...



Just a little side note; the Liberal party is _already_ pleading for Parliament (i.e. you and I) to pick up the tab for the defamation suit filed against them by Prime Minister Harper. A few thoughts about responsibility and paying for the consequences of your own actions comes to my mind...............


----------



## sgf (5 Mar 2008)

Well actually if this libel suit goes ahead, the taxpaper will be paying for both according to this article 

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1041907.html



> By TIM NAUMETZ The Canadian Press
> Wed. Mar 5 - 6:06 AM
> 
> OTTAWA — Taxpayers may be on the hook for over $1 million in legal fees if Prime Minister Stephen Harper forges ahead with his threat to sue Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and two other Liberals for libel.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2008)

As much as I think Derek Lee is wise to prefer a negotiated settlement, I do not see much alternative to a lawsuit:

•	The Liberal website clearly accuses Prime Minister Harper of a crime, he must sue because:

o	If he is innocent he cannot, in conscience, allow the defamation to continue unchallenged; but

o	If he is guilty, well, _”the best defence is a good offence;”_ and

•	The Liberals must press on because:

o	If they have any useful evidence then they will win a major political victory and do irreparable damage to Harper; but

o	Even if that have nothing but smoke and mirrors they don’t want to be seen to have backed away from Harper yet again.


----------



## sgf (5 Mar 2008)

Dona Cadman said that Harper looked her in the eye and she knew that he was telling her the truth. My thoughts are, why cant Harper look Canadians and tell them what went on instead of all this dilly dalling around.  Of course he has a right to sue for libel but whats wrong with just a simple explanation? 

The following is an expert from an article on CTV and are some questions that would solve a lot of problems. 



> Repeated appeals to the Prime Minister's Office since the Chuck Cadman affair surfaced have failed to yield direct answers to the following questions:
> 
> 1. Did anyone from the Conservative party, or connected to the Tories, offer Cadman a $1-million life insurance policy?
> 
> ...



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080304/cadman_questions_080304/20080304?hub=QPeriod

These arent difficult questions, and if answered would save the taxpapers a lot of money and time.


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2008)

"Frivolous law suites..."

Sometimes Canadian politicians make me sick.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Mar 2008)

The Elections Act restricts the amount that a candidate may spend during an election campaign according to this refererence: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/participation/guides/run_office/federal/

The candidate is responsible for funding his or her campaign, however some of it is reimbursable from Elections Canada. It seems to me that the offer might, say again, might have been to to cover his election expenses up to a ceiling. Note that the loan was said to be to the local riding association. The association could then loan the money to his campaign. 

Note that there are strict limits on contributions.

I am not an expert in election financing and political fund raising. Question - why has someone on either side or in the media not brought spending limits into the argument?


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Mar 2008)

> "I believe members of Parliament from all parties should be protected from frivolous lawsuits," he said. "Otherwise, how are we going to do our jobs?"



If you accuse somebody of a crime, they have both a right and an obligation to defend their character. I would hardly call that frivolous. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defamed. In which case, the Liberal Party and Mr Dion et al should have to fund the libel suit out of their own pockets. This is not a case where the house needs to protect the good name of the members involved. If anything, the house could pay for Mr Harper as the injured party. It is not the responsibiltiy of the taxpayer to pry Mr Dion's foot from his mouth, or his head from some other part of his anatomy.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Mar 2008)

The story speculates that Parliament may fund the defence for the three MPs. However I cannot see the other parties voting to authorize this. Given the party's financial situation which is not rosey, it seems to me that the other parties would welcome a long, costly trial that consumes a healthy chunk of the Liberals' bank account.


----------



## sgf (5 Mar 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If you accuse somebody of a crime, they have both a right and an obligation to defend their character. I would hardly call that frivolous. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defamed. In which case, the Liberal Party and Mr Dion et al should have to fund the libel suit out of their own pockets. This is not a case where the house needs to protect the good name of the members involved. If anything, the house could pay for Mr Harper as the injured party. It is not the responsibiltiy of the taxpayer to pry Mr Dion's foot from his mouth, or his head from some other part of his anatomy.



According to the news piece, its not only the Liberals that would have their lawyers funded by the taxpapers



> The Conservative party will be paying Harper’s legal fees, spokesman Ryan Sparrow said. But even then, considering that federal parties are now heavily funded by taxpayers through quarterly allowances, the public arguably foots a substantial part of the cost.



If this libel case proceeds, seems that once again it will be costing the taxpayer a lot of money. It would be so simple and so cheaper for Harper just to explain what happened


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> It would be so simple and so cheaper for Harper just to explain what happened



Wow, you are so blinded by hatred, you can't even see how unbelievably stupid your post is.........


I'm not a Mr. Dion fan [did you notice the Mr.?], however he doesn't make me say things that are so trashy that I lose any sane arguement just by my spewforth.


----------



## sgf (5 Mar 2008)

Well wanting some answers may indeed appear stupid to some, but it doesnt to me. If you scroll up a few posts, you will see a bit of an article with some fairly simple questions that would truly solve all this.  I certainly am not blinded by hatred, and have never given any indication that I was. I have often stated here that both parties have made mistakes and done things that I am not happy with. I have seen Harper play the libel chill card before now, and I think that hes doing this just to avoid answering questions in Question Period.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Well wanting some answers may indeed appear stupid to some, but it doesnt to me. If you scroll up a few posts, you will see a bit of an article with some fairly simple questions that would truly solve all this.  I certainly am not blinded by hatred, and have never given any indication that I was. I have often stated here that both parties have made mistakes and done things that I am not happy with. I have seen Harper play the libel chill card before now, and I think that hes doing this just to avoid answering questions in Question Period.


Harper, when playing against the opposition, has shown time and again that he is the chess master. They have yet to outmanoeuvre him. Conversely, they have found themselves time and again sitting on the seat above the dunk tank while Harper throws bullseyes. No doubt, the facts will all come out, but only when they absolutely have too, and when the opposition has their head, once again, firmly in the snare. It will likely be at a time for maximum effect of driving another nail into the coffin of the liberals. This is all conjecture of course, but past practice and all that............... Besides, why would he give the opposition fodder to try build a defence against the libel suit?

If Harper feels nothing has been done wrong, he only needs to explain such, which he has done. It's not up to him to defend slanderous allegations. If the liberals are so sure they have a case, as the accuser, they have to prove it..............but they can't. So they sit and whine, yell, throw slanderous and libelous accusations and basically act like the kids on Super Nanny. They're blowing sunshine up everyone's arse. One last ditch effort to show them as being strong, moral and united. Too bad they have failed on all three counts, repeatedly.


----------



## sgf (5 Mar 2008)

chess master or bully? just kidding...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> chess master or bully? just kidding...


You need a true bully for a role model, you need look no further the Le Petit Thug de Shawinigan


----------



## 31C (5 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Well I think the timing is to sell books, but this is not a smear, or a drive by or slinging mud.. what was said in the book is the truth. People may not want to admit that but at the end of the day the Tory Party offered a million dollars to Cadman  for his vote.



Interesting choice of words, I look closley at what people say when that word gets throw around, "truth". Admitting implies automatic quilt.   That the now prime minister or his party solicited votes with remuneration is a alegation of a crime. Just becuase something falls out of someones mouth or ends up in print, does not make it the truth.


----------



## sgf (5 Mar 2008)

And if the PM would just answer a few questons, all would be solved. I dont think Dona Cadman nor her daughter were lying, do you? This situation is very muddied, and could very quickly have been cleared up.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> And if the PM would just answer a few questons, all would be solved. I dont think Dona Cadman nor her daughter were lying, do you? This situation is very muddied, and could very quickly have been cleared up.



That's twice on the last two pages you've said that. It would seem, even if someone answers your conjecture, you merrily keep spouting the same thing, ignoring the discussion.



> Well I think the timing is to sell books, but this is not a smear, or a drive by or slinging mud.. *what was said in the book is the truth. People may not want to admit that but at the end of the day the Tory Party offered a million dollars to Cadman for his vote. *



You've been called on this statement, that you made, since page one. You still haven't substantiated it. This is exactly the situation your beloved liberals find themselves in. They've made outrageous, libelous and slanderous statements and can't back them up. Like you, they believe because a journalist and publisher printed it, it must be true. The liberals, if anyone, should really know better than that. So should you.


_edit for clarification_


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> According to the news piece, its not only the Liberals that would have their lawyers funded by the taxpapers
> 
> _The Conservative party will be paying Harper’s legal fees, spokesman Ryan Sparrow said. But even then, considering that federal parties are now heavily funded by taxpayers through quarterly allowances, the public arguably foots a substantial part of the cost._
> 
> If this libel case proceeds, seems that once again it will be costing the taxpayer a lot of money. It would be so simple and so cheaper for Harper just to explain what happened



Hardly; this has bullsh*t written all over it: the Conservative Party (like all the major political parties) gets part of it's funding through the government (in order to reduce corruption, at least in theory).  They also get funding from individuals and businesses.  This is the vehicle of the "public cost" alluded-to in the article.  How the party spends that money is up to them (within certain legal limits): there is no proposed additional cost to the taxpayer ... the Conservatives would be (at least theoretically) foregoing an expense in another area.  If I understand correctly, what the Liberals are asking for is an _additional burden_ on the taxpayer.  Not all the same thing!

Little more than a (rather weak) attempt to obscure the real issue by smearing the (alleged) victim.


----------



## sgf (5 Mar 2008)

I am just asking Harper to be accountable. 

This news article has just come out



> Mar 05, 2008 07:26 PM
> Steve Rennie
> THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...



http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/309736


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I am just asking Harper to be accountable.



He answered the question (see your last post), now what else is it that he is supposed to be accountable-for?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I am just asking Harper to be accountable.
> 
> This news article has just come out
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/309736



Well it's in print, from a journalist, it must be true according to you, right?  ;D

_edit to add emoticons & jestful intent_


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Mar 2008)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

*The Abstention Party*
Editorial
National Post, Thursday, March 06, 2008

Stephane Dion and his Liberals do know they are Parliament's "Official Opposition" and not its Official Abstainers, don't they?

Judging by their votes -- or lack thereof -- on crucial bills and motions this session, it is not obvious to us that the Grits understand the difference. They seem far more interested in smearing the government by perpetuating artificial scandals than voting yea or nay on matters of true concern to the nation.

Through the last two sitting days of last week and the first two of this week, the Liberals have been obsessed with the Chuck Cadman "scandal." Day after day, they have used up nearly all their question period time asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to disprove dubious claims that in 2005 Conservative party officials offered the dying MP a massive life insurance policy in return for his vote to bring down Paul Martin's Liberal government. The Liberal benches have been packed with enthusiastically hooting back-benchers as Mr. Dion and other leading Liberals have hurled thin, salacious accusations at Mr. Harper. But when it came time on Tuesday to vote on the budget, how many of those same Liberals bothered to show up? Exactly 11.

The budget is the key blueprint detailing how Ottawa plans to spend more than $200-billion of Canadians' tax dollars. It contains plans for infrastructure spending, social programs, national defence and federal-provincial transfers. In other words, it is the most important bill passed in Parliament each year, not to mention the most serious of all confidence motions. No government survives that cannot arrange the passage of its own budget.

So where were the Liberals when this year's spending plans were being voted on? We're not sure. All that is certain is that 83 of them were AWOL during the biggest vote of the year.

The Liberals' reasoning here is quite transparent. Throwing eggs at the government over the Cadman allegations might win them votes in the next election, while voting against the budget might actually trigger such an election. And while the Liberals are keen to improve their electoral fortunes, they are deathly afraid of bringing the government down now because they are said to be badly in debt, bitterly divided over Mr. Dion's leadership and unprepared to face voters. So instead of performing their proper role in the national debate -- providing sensible alternatives to government bills -- the Liberals are hiding in their Parliament Hill holes and poking up their heads only when it suits their party's parochial interests.
So afraid are the Liberals of going to the polls they even orchestrated the defeat of their own budget amendments. They laced their own motion with so much anti-NDP rhetoric that Jack Layton and his caucus had to side with the Conservatives in a confidence vote the day before the main budget passed.

It all reminds us of the self-inflicted humiliation the Liberals suffered last fall when they sat on their hands en masse in the Commons as the Tories' Throne Speech -- laden with policies the Liberals detest -- was easily passed. The recent shenanigans only reinforce the impression that Mr. Dion and his charges have neither the spine nor the stomach to provide Canadians with anything except ad hominem catcalls.

My comment: Cowards of the Nation and to borrow from E.R Campbell: ineptitude of a high order


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Mar 2008)

Yup, indifference is not the answer the Canadian public deserve.

You have a chance to state, and change, what you think is right and/or wrong but you stay home?

Cowards indeed.

[Which Liberals showed up?]


----------



## stegner (6 Mar 2008)

Harper did the same thing when he was in opposition-funny how the article doesn't mention that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Harper did the same thing when he was in opposition-funny how the article doesn't mention that.



I tried to "google" that and couldn't find it,...........can you provide when/where/ what?


----------



## stegner (6 Mar 2008)

Not a problem.  One prominent example of Harper having the Conservatives abstain came on March 9, 2005 with the Federal Budget.   I used the Canadian newsstand database and have attached some samples of the reaction to that event.

From the National Post:



> *Goodale budget passes commons with help from the tories; [National Edition]
> National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Mar 10, 2005. pg. A.6*
> 
> 
> OTTAWA - With crucial help from the Conservatives, Paul Martin's minority Liberal government yesterday survived a confidence vote on the budget, averting the possibility of a snap election. The Conservatives stuck to a pledge to abstain from voting, meaning the Liberals had sufficient numbers to pass the budget, whose provisions include funds for the government's health care deal with the provinces, funds for daycare commitments and more money for defence. The Liberals stood to vote for Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's budget. The Bloc Quebecois and NDP voted against the budget. The count was 132-73 in favour. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper motioned as if he were going to stand to vote against the budget, but remained in his seat along with other members of his caucus. The Tories had said they did not want to spark an election now. "We have the power to defeat the budget but we will not exercise it," Mr. Harper said before the budget vote, noting the Tories might vote against individual policy items later.



Again from the National Post:



> *Making Liberal life easy; [National Edition]
> National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Mar 10, 2005. pg. A.18*
> 
> When Canada elected its first minority government in a quarter- century last June, there was widespread optimism that the Liberals would finally be held to better account. But that's not how things have played out. If anything, the government is being let off easier than it was when it held most of Parliament's seats.
> ...






From a small town newspaper in Ontario:



> *Liberal budget passes final test: Conservatives abstain from vote; [Final Edition]
> Jim Brown. Packet and Times. Orillia, Ont.: Mar 10, 2005. pg. A.5*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Mar 2008)

Thank you.....I did notice one thing though, Mr. Harper's crew _did show up _ and _did what they said they were going to do_.

Which doesn't mean its right either though.


----------



## stegner (6 Mar 2008)

Probably not.  I have a little quiz of fill in the blanks.  Who said the following?

X says there'll be "no free ride" for the Y any more and we shouldn't expect Z to abstain from votes simply to avoid an election. There are several budget measures that require enabling legislation. When these measures -- traditionally involving confidence in the government -- come to a vote, we'll see how serious X's  party is.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2008)

Abstention is not right for any party. It cheats the public. Once, or even a couple of times, per government term can be called posturing, politics, whatever. It can be looked at with somewhat of a jaundiced eye, but accepted by the public. However, when it becomes the norm and is used constantly, like the liberals are doing, it shows lack of intestinal fortitude and the public is not being served. They are collecting a hefty wage and perks, while doing nothing for it. In the US, they would likely be recalled enmasse and fired. The liberals are doing it for mercenary gain and not for the good of the people that voted them in. They are turning Parliament into a mockery and a sham. Perhaps, come the next election, the sheeple that put them there will finally have an epiphany and throw freeloaders to the curb.


----------



## sgf (6 Mar 2008)

Let me get this straight, the liberals did not vote against the budget and that shows lack of intestinal fortitude and doing it only for mercenary gain, but its fine when Harper did the same thing while in opposition? Were not the public being cheated then? Is there a time limit on how many times a party can abstent, I dont think so. Both parties are equally at fault here. Both had their reasons not to vote the budget down. Both were doing that for political gain. Dont kid yourself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight, the liberals did not vote against the budget and that shows lack of intestinal fortitude and doing it only for mercenary gain, but its fine when Harper did the same thing while in opposition? Were not the public being cheated then? Is there a time limit on how many times a party can abstent, I dont think so. Both parties are equally at fault here. Both had their reasons not to vote the budget down. Both were doing that for political gain. Dont kid yourself.



Once again, you failed to read my opinion fully and understand it. So, once again, I'll explain it it little pieces so you can understand.

Abstention should not be an option. It cheats the voters.

Used once, or even twice, during a government's term, can be looked upon as posturing, and while not proper, is usually overlooked. It has been for a long time, well and long before the CPC came on the scene.

Using it constantly, as the liberals have been doing, shows lack of guts, to confront the boogey man they complain about so much. They are not giving their constituents their moneys worth. They are cheating the public. The liberals are only concerned with their own survival and not the needs of the people that put them there, or the good of the country.

You're right. There should be a limit. Actually, it shouldn't be allowed at all. However, given that it is, if it was limited, the liberals would have far exceeded an acceptable quota, since the last election, long ago. 

I'll go one further, voting with the government, to avoid election, while posturing, in the scrum & MSM, against the given legislation, amounts to the same thing. Gutless.

I'll let someone else respond to you, next time you attack my opinion without fully reading and understanding it. This has been twice now. I can't be bothered to waste my time.


----------



## sgf (6 Mar 2008)

Thanks so much for the explanation, however I havent changed my position on this. The Liberals did it and so have the CPC. I fail to see how one party is so wrong but again thanks for your explanation!!!!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Thanks so much for the explanation, however I havent changed my position on this. The Liberals did it and so have the CPC. I fail to see how one party is so wrong but again thanks for your explanation!!!!!



The CPC has used it sparingly, as have other parties. The liberals have and are abusing it, by using it so many times. That and voting with the goverment, when they fundementally disagree with the content, simply to forestall the election, is selfish and self serving. It not only hurts them for credibility, it also abuses the trust the voters placed in them. We are not just talking about the budget vote here, but an ongoing abuse of process by the liberals. 

I can't make it any clearer for you. If you still have trouble understanding the concept, I suggest you participate somewhere else, as the discussion here seems to, possibly, be going well over your head.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The CPC has used it sparingly, as have other parties. The liberals have and are abusing it, by using it so many times. That and voting with the goverment, when they fundementally disagree with the content, simply to forestall the election, is selfish and self serving. It not only hurts them for credibility, it also abuses the trust the voters placed in them. We are not just talking about the budget vote here, but an ongoing abuse of process by the liberals.



To be fair, if the tables were turned and the Tories were like the Liberals right now and had a pathetic leader, no money, and no direction whatsoever they would probably be doing the same things just to hold on to something......


----------



## stegner (6 Mar 2008)

> To be fair, if the tables were turned and the Tories were like the Liberals right now and had a pathetic leader, no money, and no direction whatsoever they would probably be doing the same things just to hold on to something......



I quite agree.  We saw some of this lack of direction during Harper's tenure as opposition leader.  During this time, he attempted on several occasions to get the Governor General to intervene on his behalf.  Madame Clarkson politely ignored him.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Mar 2008)

Madam Clarkson had the "Reserve Powers" of the Vice Regal office to intervene during a constitutional crisis, *such as the governing party ignore a motion and vote of non confidence.* Perhaps unfortunately, Her Excellency chose not to intervene, first due to the negative example of the "Byng King" affair, where Lord Byng rebuffed Prime Minister King's request to dissolve parliament (to avoid a corruption scandal becoming public....how things have changed ,</sarcasm>) and invited the leader of the opposition to from the government. While correct, the new government fell in turn and King used the election as a chance to attack the Vice Regal office (and incidentally hide the scandal which started the whole thing off). Subsequent holders of the Vice Regal office have been less inclined to dust off their reserve powers, although there was a rumor that this might have become a factor in 1982 during the repatriation of the constitution.

The other factor is the Vice Regal office has become a highly paid patronage post, which must change how occupants see the role of the office.

In the mean time, to provide that balance and fairness some posters seem to feel is lacking:

http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2008/03/06/what-is-former-pm-paul-martin-saying/



> *What is former PM Paul Martin saying?*
> March 6th, 2008 at 11:17am |
> 
> Double standard anyone? Isn’t it just a little bit strange that we are hearing absolutely nothing in the MSM from or about former PM Paul Martin on the Chuck Cadman matter? In fact, both Martin’s and the media’s silence is positively deafening.
> ...


----------



## stegner (6 Mar 2008)

I had heard that Martin might be in legal trouble over the Cadman affair.  Since he wrote the forward questions have arisen that if he read the book, he failed to fulfill his duty to inform the House of the allegations, and there might be legal consequences.  

We have talked about Stronach on here but we should not forget Wajid Khan, Scott Brison, Garth Turner and David Emerson as being floor crossers also.  Perhaps all of these floor crossings need to be investigated as all of these folks benefited from the switch.  Should there not be a policy if you cross the floor it triggers an automatic by-election?


----------



## JBG (6 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Not a problem.  One prominent example of Harper having the Conservatives abstain came on March 9, 2005 with the Federal Budget.   I used the Canadian newsstand database and have attached some samples of the reaction to that event.


The difference is that two elections within a calandar year is a bit much, but this minority government is already one of the longest on record. There's no question that the Liberals have slid from being wary of premature elections to shirking their responsibility to act as a loyal opposition.


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

The thing that gets me in all of this plus the NAFTAgate, is Harper campaigned on integrity, accountability and how years of Liberal corruption are over. He said that his party would be morally better. I am still waiting for that to happen.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> The thing that gets me in all of this plus the NAFTAgate, is Harper campaigned on integrity, accountability and how years of Liberal corruption are over. He said that his party would be morally better. I am still waiting for that to happen.



Wow, seems to me to be exactly what the Liberals themselves always campaign on -- that being the "moral highground". Welcome to politics ladies & gents, just in case you happened to have missed it in High School civics class.  : 

And Liberalgate this -- and -- Liberalgate that ...

It always comes down to which is the lesser of the evils ... cast your votes wisely.


----------



## stegner (7 Mar 2008)

> Wow, seems to me to be exactly what the Liberals themselves always campaign on -- that being the "moral highground". Welcome to politics ladies & gents, just in case you happened to have missed it in High School civics class.



All parties campaign on occupying the moral high ground.



> The thing that gets me in all of this plus the NAFTAgate



This must be part of Harper's plan to improve relations with the United States.  If Obama become President which is still a distinct possibility and Harper remains Prime Minister what kind of relationship do you think that would be like?  Not very good and worse than the Chretien and Bush relationship-Bush and Chretien's differences were policy-oriented and not personal as has been widely reported.  A Obama-Harper relationship would see personal and policy differences.   If you check Obama's website he is quoting Jack Layton to defend the allegations of the double speak on NAFTA.  Not good.  Harper's name is mud in the Obama camp.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> All parties campaign on occupying the moral high ground.



Which was exactly the point. Choose your medicine carefully ...


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

Harper ran his election campaign and won on the basis of accountability and integrity. The Liberals have never ran a campaign soley on those issues. I fully expected Harper to fulful his campaign promises.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Harper ran his election campaign and won on the basis of accountability and integrity. The Liberals have never ran a campaign soley on those issues. I fully expected Harper to fulful his campaign promises.



Oh, so because they've never actually run on a platform of "accountibility and integrity", we should just excuse the fact that they are neither and have evidenced a long history of not being so?? You people kill me.  :

Not like you voted for Harper anyway --- so apparently you didn't listen to his promises anyway. What are you worried about?? Those who did and who voted for him? I voted for him -- and I didn't do so based solely on "honesty & integrity" --- rather I did so in large part because I, for one, was sick and tired of empty Liberal promises that turned to squat due to them being more concerned about covering their own asses and paying all their patronage costs.

Pots and black kettles.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Harper ran his election campaign and won on the basis of accountability and integrity. The Liberals have never ran a campaign soley on those issues.



 ;D

Doesn't that tell you something about the Liberal's?


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

The tories have formed the current government for several years now, I would think its time to move away from blaming everything on the liberals and put their big political party pants on and stand on their own record and actions.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> The tories have formed the current government for several years now, I would think its time to move away from blaming everything on the liberals and put their big political party pants on and stand on their own record and actions.



 :rofl:


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Mar 2008)

COFFEE ALL OVER THE NEW COMPANY MONITOR!!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> The tories have formed the current government for several years now, I would think its time to move away from blaming everything on the liberals and put their big political party pants on and stand on their own record and actions.



Which is something the Liberals themselves were incapable of doing -- exactly why they did NOT get my vote last election ... and is something that remains unchanged today -- were there to be an election (and, me thinks the Liberals may know that I and many others feel this way --- ergo their very agile little two-stepping dance being bantied about the Canadian public in dearest hopes of avoiding an election at this time).


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

ya, what am i thinking.. that isnt going to happen...  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> The tories have formed the current government for several years now, I would think its time to move away from blaming everything on the liberals and put their big political party pants on and stand on their own record and actions.



That's very true; it is time to stop blaming the Liberals and shore up the Tory _record_ by adding some more accomplishments and "_promises kept_" to it.

It will, however, be fair game, during the campaign to remind Canadians that, since about 1967, inept policies, economic mismanagement* lies, scandals and corruption have been the primary attributes of the Liberal Party of Canada.

----------
* What Chrétien/Martin did for seven years (’93 to 2000) was to screw Alberta, BC and Ontario in an attempt to clean up the Trudeau/Chrétien mess from the ‘70s and early ‘80s.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ya, what am i thinking.. that isnt going to happen...  ;D



Nope, not for the Liberals anyway -- we waited decades for them to get their shit together ... and are still waiting.  :


----------



## aesop081 (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ya, what am i thinking.. that isnt going to happen...  ;D



the liberals would camaign on what exactly ?

HRDC management record ?

ADSCAM ?

Allowin the CF to continue flying the CH-124 despite all the money spent ?

Their more recent record of agressively abstaning from votes which may cause an ellection ?

Their current policy of flip-floping their position on Afghanistan / budget in order to avoid an ellection ?


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

Well they could take a leaf out of Harpers Election Book and campaign on all the broken promises Harper made and promise to clean up government. As much fun as this is, we seem to be getting off topic


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Well they could take a leaf out of Harpers Election Book and campaign on all the broken promises Harper made and promise to clean up government. As much fun as this is, we seem to be getting off topic



Really?? Seems it's a favourite topic of yours --- slamming Harper (newsflash: and, after a mere ONE election victory by him, he _has_ cleaned it up compared to the Liberals!!) while ignoring DECADES of same crap and more dirtying up of things from the Liberals.  :


----------



## JBG (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> The tories have formed the current government for several years now, I would think its time to move away from blaming everything on the liberals and put their big political party pants on and stand on their own record and actions.


And running a minority government, one of the slimmest on record, as well?


----------



## JBG (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Well they could take a leaf out of Harpers Election Book and campaign on all the broken promises Harper made and promise to clean up government.


Why don't they? Or are they too busy abstaining/walking out?


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

Well I do admit that i do slam Harper quite a bit, however there seems to be a lot of slamming of other political parties going on as well, so I must be in good company. (Actually government doesnt seem  to me, to be that cleaned up especially after the last week and the latest news stories). I guess we shall continue to agree to disagree and each vote as we see fit.. thank goddness  for that


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> Why don't they? Or are they too busy abstaining/walking out?



This has been mentioned before, but Harper also abstained from voting on a Liberal budget.


----------



## JBG (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Well I do admit that i do slam Harper quite a bit, however there seems to be a lot of slamming of other political parties going on as well, so I must be in good company. (Actually government doesnt seem  to me, to be that cleaned up especially after the last week and the latest news stories). I guess we shall continue to agree to disagree and each vote as we see fit.. thank goddness  for that


And what's not "cleaned up"? Another ancient, unlikely scandal, "Cadgate"? (sure, life insurance policies to Stage 5 cancer patients are written every day). Or the Obama campaign being outed for their remarks to the Canadian consulate (since when is a political campaign entitled to confidentiality on letting Canada know that Obama was lying on his NAFTA posture)?


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Well I do admit that i do slam Harper quite a bit, however there seems to be a lot of slamming of other political parties going on as well, so I must be in good company. (Actually government doesnt seem  to me, to be that cleaned up especially after the last week and the latest news stories). I guess we shall continue to agree to disagree and each vote as we see fit.. thank goddness  for that



Really, read my posting history and you'll see me slamming some of the Tory policies (especially some of the election promises made during Harper's campaign [troops in every city etc]); so, it seems to me that the "good company you keep" tends to diverge when it comes to blindfolds and party loyalty, I don't vote based on party loyalty which you have already stated you do -- either party may get my vote ... and I certainly don't brush over Liberal shenanigans with rose-coloured glasses upon my nez.


----------



## JBG (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> This has been mentioned before, but Harper also abstained from voting on a Liberal budget.


As I answered before there were good reasons:
Liberal minority government was less than eight months old; and
CPC was having its maiden policy convention, having just picked a leader.
The current minority government is not the third or fourth longest on record, despite having a very slim mandate. If the LPC took the government down its not as if two years 2 months is too soon for an election; Chretien did them almost that often in the context of healthy majorities.


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

There are always excuses   good reasons for everything!!


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> Chretien did them almost that often in the context of healthy majorities.



But see, that is the crux of the matter ... this is sgf you're responding to -- and Chretien is a Liberal (so it's excuseable); and currently, the Liberals are avoiding bringing down the government (abstaining from votes) precisely because they wouldn't have a hope in HELL of winning an election; they are, quite simply, protecting their butts (in the context of avoiding a healthy majority FOR the Tories <-- this tidbit therefore constitutes a "good reason for everything/excusable Liberal action" for sgf).


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Really, read my posting history and you'll see me slamming some of the Tory policies (especially some of the election promises made during Harper's campaign [troops in every city etc]); so, it seems to me that the "good company you keep" tends to diverge when it comes to blindfolds and party loyalty, I don't vote based on party loyalty which you have already stated you do -- either party may get my vote ... and I certainly don't brush over Liberal shenanigans with rose-coloured glasses upon my nez.



I honestly cant imagine reading anyone's posting history, I dont expect anyone to read mine. Let me say that I have often said that I disagree with many things the Liberals have done in the past, and right now they are the party for me.  I have voted for the Tories many times in the past and who knows may do again some day, after they get a different leader.


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> ... who knows may do again some day, after they get a different leader.



- Would you vote for Jim Prentice?


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

would you vote for Frank McKenna?


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> would you vote for Frank McKenna?



Am I a girl from the Miramichi (ooops--- sorry, you'd have to review my posting history to find that out)??


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2008)

Has he sworn off the old-style 'big-govermnent' corporate welfare policies that have been tainted by the 'culture of handouts' so necessary to succeed in down-home politics?


----------



## stegner (7 Mar 2008)

> What Chrétien/Martin did for seven years (’93 to 2000) was to screw Alberta...



Um as someone who has lived in Alberta for almost all my life I am curious about this?  Are there examples?  

I wonder if Stephen Harper would like it if Obama became President and mysterious leaks of _*alleged*_ coversations detrimental to his campaign would appear during a Canadian election?  Probably not.  Say what you want about Dion, but at least he has the guts to _*libel * _ someone to their face.


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Am I a girl from the Miramichi (ooops--- sorry, you'd have to review my posting history to find that out)??



Wow.. really? I lived on da north shore for years, Campbellton... left there for Bathurst and then joined the military. Going back this summer for a reunion, hope the snow is gone!!


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ...I wonder if Stephen Harper would like it if Obama became President and mysterious leaks of _*alleged*_ coversations detrimental to his campaign would appear during a Canadian election?  Probably not.  Say what you want about Dion, but at least he has the guts to _*libel * _ someone to their face.



- Ref leaks:  Someone should pay with their job for that, true, but at least one of his MPs didn't stomp on an Obama doll, like a GWB doll was stomped by one of someone elses MPs a few years back.

- Ref Mr Dion: concur.


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Has he sworn off the old-style 'big-govermnent' corporate welfare policies that have been tainted by the 'culture of handouts' so necessary to succeed in down-home politics?



so.. thats a no???


----------



## stegner (7 Mar 2008)

> - Ref leaks:  Someone should pay with their job for that, true, but at least one of his MPs didn't stomp on an Obama doll, like a GWB doll was stomped by one of someone elses MPs a few years back.



No they stepped on his heart 

That crazy MP was Carrolyn Parish.  Her 15 minutes have long been over.  She was kicked out of the Liberal Party for that.


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> so.. thats a no???



- Depends... is this a no???  

"So, would you vote for Jim Prentice?"


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> No they stepped on his heart
> 
> That crazy MP was Carrolyn Parish.  Her 15 minutes have long been over.  She was kicked out of the Liberal Party for that.



Actually, *no*. She was dismissed from the Liberal Caucus some time after for making statements disloyal to Prime Minister Paul Martin. No one in the caucus seemed to have any issues with the other thing (nor did they seem to take the effect on Canada/US relations into account on any issue from softwood lumber to missile defence).



> Removal from National Liberal Caucus
> 
> On November 18, a Canadian Press story quoted her as saying Martin, and those around him, could "go to hell" if they wanted her to stop making similar comments. She went on to say that she had no loyalty towards the Liberal Party and that if it were defeated in the next election she "would not shed a tear," as she had felt betrayed by Martin's lack of help for her during her nomination and election campaigns. In response to these comments, Martin, with the support of National Liberal Caucus chair Andy Savoy, expelled her from caucus.



Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have been outed now for playing footisie with the NAFTA issue. Both are isolationist Democrats who would make hash of Canada/US relations because it is far more important for them to maintain their political base in the United States. A Republican administration would probably continue with the policy of benign neglect we have seen through much of our history. As a sovereign nation, we must take steps to protect *our own* interests, and given 80% or more of our trade flows to the United States, any action that impacts that would have serious reprecusions to our economy and way of life.


----------



## JBG (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But see, that is the crux of the matter ... this is sgf you're responding to -- and Chretien is a Liberal (so it's excuseable); and currently, the Liberals are avoiding bringing down the government (abstaining from votes) precisely because they wouldn't have a hope in HELL of winning an election; they are, quite simply, protecting their butts (in the context of avoiding a healthy majority FOR the Tories <-- this tidbit therefore constitutes a "good reason for everything/excusable Liberal action" for sgf).


Even though I'm a Yank and know literally nothing about Canada, I figured out that Dion had ulterior motives other than protecting Canadians from an election they didn't want. I bet Joke Lark wish he would have been so solicitous of Canadians' dislike of the polls.

Turdeau's Liberals then certainly didn't hesitate to harpoon the government over the gas tax (even though they proceeded to raise it themselves).


----------



## stegner (7 Mar 2008)

> Actually, no. She was dismissed from the Liberal Caucus some time after for making statements disloyal to Prime Minister Paul Martin. No one in the caucus seemed to have any issues with the other thing (nor did they seem to take the effect on Canada/US relations into account on any issue from softwood lumber to missile defence).



She stepped on the doll on November 17th the day before she was booted from caucus, not _*some time * _ after.   Her comments to Martin and the caucus was in response to them noting that her behaviour was irresponsible.  Her removal from caucus is a direct correlation to the doll stepping incident and her unwillingness to see this action as inappropriate.  



> As a sovereign nation, we must take steps to protect our own interests, and given 80% or more of our trade flows to the United States, any action that impacts that would have serious repercussions to our economy and way of life.


Canada has no business interfering in American elections.  How would you like it if the CIA gave the Liberal Party money?  By the way, Canada survived 127 years without NAFTA.  Even if Canada gave its six months notice to withdraw from NAFTA the Americans would still need our natural resources and goods.  Our special relationship transcends politics and international agreements.


----------



## sgf (7 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Depends... is this a no???
> 
> "So, would you vote for Jim Prentice?"



What I would truly like to see, in the coming years are new leaders.. with no political history or baggage. Someone that can offer the Canadian public a new start. This is for both parties. I am not a big Dion fan, and when I look at the options for either party.. there isnt many that makes my heart beat faster. The answer is no I would not vote for Prentice.


----------



## 2 Cdo (7 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Canada has no business interfering in American elections.



You mean like Jean Chretein openly stating that he would prefer a Democrat versus a Republican in the White House. You Liberal supporters continue to amaze me with your absolute disregard for history. :


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ... How would you like it if the CIA gave the Liberal Party money? ...



- What?  AGAIN?

 “George Ball and I knocked over the Diefenbaker government by one incautious press release.” (McGeorge Bundy, J.F.Kennedy’s National security advisor)

“My brother really hated only two men in all his presidency. One was Sukarno [President of Indonesia] and the other was Diefenbaker.” (Robert Kennedy)

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SAN303D.html

"In 1962, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Livingston Merchant and his Second Secretary Charles Kisselyak, fuelled a plot among the Canadian Air Forces, Canadian journalists and others to dispose of Prime Minister Diefenbaker. Kennedy hated Dief largely for his anti-nuclear stance. Merchant and other U.S. embassy officers with extensive espionage backgrounds, met at Kisselyak's home in Ottawa to feed journalists with spaghetti, beer and anti-Diefenbaker/pronuclear propaganda. Among the many participants in these off-the-record briefings was Charles Lynch of Southam News.

Diefenbaker later denounced these reporters as "traitors" and "foreign agents." He lashed out against Lynch on a TV program saying, "You were given briefings as to how the Canadian government could be attacked on the subject of nuclear weapons and the failure of the Canadian government to do that which the U.S. dictated."

Merchant and Kisselyak worked with RCAF Wing Commander Bill Lee and NORAD's number two man, Canadian Air Marshall Roy Slemon. Air Marshall Hugh Campbell and the chair of Canada's chiefs of staff, Air Marshall Frank Miller also approved Lee's campaign. Diefenbaker's avidly pronuclear Defence Minister, Douglas Harkness, also knew of Lee's effort.

As head of RCAF public relations, Lee went to Washington twice a month to confer with U.S. authorities. "It was a flat-out campaign," Lee later said. "We identified key journalists, business and labour, key Tory hitters, and...Liberals.... We wanted people with influence on members of cabinet. In the end the pressure paid off."

In 1962, new U.S. ambassador, William Butterworth, continued what Lee called the "flat-out campaign" by holding discrete meetings at the U.S. embassy to exert influence on Canadian journalists.

Lester Pearson was the President's choice. Kennedy gave the go-ahead to his friend and America's leading pollster, Lou Harris, to become the Liberal's secret campaign advisor in the 1962 election. Diefenbaker survived with a minority government.

The plot to bring down Canada's government came to a head in January, 1963. On Jan.3, top U.S. Air Force General Lauris Norstad held an Ottawa press conference. Prompted by questions from Lynch, and other reporters briefed by U.S. intelligence, Norstad criticized Canada's antinuclear stance. On Jan. 12, Pearson announced his new policy of supporting U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada. In protest, Pierre Trudeau called Pearson the "defrocked priest of peace" and refused to run for the Liberals.

The coup's final blow came when the U.S. State Department issued a press release which called Diefenbaker a liar on nuclear issues (Jan. 30). This tactic was suggested by Willis Armstrong, head of the State Department's Canada Desk in Washington. Butterworth added his suggestions and sent his senior embassy advisor, Rufus Smith, to Washington to draft it. "With Armstrong chairing, half a dozen officials from State, the White House and the Pentagon...shaped...the rebuke." The draft was polished by Under Secretary of State George McGhee and approved by acting Secretary of State, George Ball, and national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy." ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Um as someone who has lived in Alberta for almost all my life I am curious about this?  Are there examples?
> 
> I wonder if Stephen Harper would like it if Obama became President and mysterious leaks of _*alleged*_ coversations detrimental to his campaign would appear during a Canadian election?  Probably not.  Say what you want about Dion, but at least he has the guts to _*libel * _ someone to their face.



The main component of the Liberal _cleanup_ of the financial mess into which Messer Trudeau Benson, Turner and Chrétien dumped us _circa_ 1967-77 was to (unilaterally) change the _shared programme_ funding rules so as to disadvantage the three ‘have’ provinces. It was _voodoo economics_, at best, chicanery is a better word, lies and theft might be acceptable terms, too.


----------



## JBG (7 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> She stepped on the doll on November 17th the day before she was booted from caucus, not _*some time * _ after.   Her comments to Martin and the caucus was in response to them noting that her behaviour was irresponsible.  Her removal from caucus is a direct correlation to the doll stepping incident and her unwillingness to see this action as inappropriate.


If I recall correctly she was given the boot after saying a few days after "doll crush" that she didn't care what Martin's reaction was to it.


----------



## stegner (7 Mar 2008)

> - What?  AGAIN?
> 
> “George Ball and I knocked over the Diefenbaker government by one incautious press release.” (McGeorge Bundy, J.F.Kennedy’s National security advisor)
> 
> “My brother really hated only two men in all his presidency. One was Sukarno [President of Indonesia] and the other was Diefenbaker.” (Robert Kennedy)




Peas in a pod!   Apparently tensions between Kennedy and Diefenbaker heightened after Kennedy threw out his back really bad at a tree planting ceremony at Rideau Hall.  Kennedy thought Diefenbaker was too blame as he had bent to low and had done so on purpose.  




> You mean like Jean Chretein openly stating that he would prefer a Democrat versus a Republican in the White House. You Liberal supporters continue to amaze me with your absolute disregard for history.



I know something like this happened.   Do you have the quote of Jean Chretien saying something to this effect?  I know Raymond Chretien, the Canadian Ambassador and the PM's nephew, said something along those lines but I don't think the PM was as explicit.  This is an excerpt from that Liberal media bastion the Vancouver Sun from today:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=dffe38af-f42f-4298-a8db-cb6a35c69c8e&p=1



> _*Insincerity runs in politics on both sides of the border
> Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun
> Published: Friday, March 07, 2008*_
> Much fretting took place in 2000 when Raymond Chretien, then Canada's ambassador to the U.S., got quoted opining, outrageously, that Canada would prefer Al Gore as president rather than Bush. It was true, but not something an ambassador should say out loud.  If Bush was aggrieved at the comment, he didn't take it out on Chretien. Bush has been no more genial to Harper than he was to Chretien, aside from that one time he referred to the PM as "Steve."






> The main component of the Liberal cleanup of the financial mess into which Messer Trudeau Benson, Turner and Chrétien dumped us circa 1967-77 was to (unilaterally) change the shared programme funding rules so as to disadvantage the three ‘have’ provinces. It was voodoo economics, at best, chicanery is a better word, lies and theft might be acceptable terms, too.



I hear ya.  But Chretien was actually not too bad on the west.  When Anne McLellan was natural resources minister Alberta received some very generous tax breaks that arguably strongly contributed to the boom in the oil sands today.   Actually, had Chretien won the leadership in 1984 Ralph Klein would have quit as Mayor of Calgary to run as a federal MP.  I think a lot of the "fights" between the two was politically posturing that was mutually beneficial.  Klein would bash Ottawa every once in a while and Chretien would swear to protect the Canadian health care system from those evil Albertans who wanted to privatize.  It served both interests.  Heck the recent Alberta election saw frequent mention of Trudeau and the NEP by Stelmach as he really had nothing else to talk about.  Ed, Trudeau's been dead for 8 years and has not been in power for 24 and had no connections to the Alberta Liberals.  Nevertheless, the NEP was the best thing that ever happened to the provincial Conservatives.


----------



## JBG (8 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> No they stepped on his heart
> 
> That crazy MP was Carrolyn Parish.  Her 15 minutes have long been over.  She was kicked out of the Liberal Party for that.


I actually admired her deep thoughts about  American-Canadian relations. I was hoping she'd be assigned to be Ambassador to US or at least to handle the US portfolio in the Cabinet.


----------



## TCBF (8 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> I actually admired her deep thoughts about American-Canadian relations. I was hoping she'd be assigned to be Ambassador to US or at least to handle the US portfolio in the Cabinet.



- Yer a natural-born trouble maker, aren't you?  Baiting a group of Right-thinking Canucks by waving a Parilyn Carrish flag in front of us!  

- Welcome aboard.  This Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Act - exciting stuff?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Yer a natural-born trouble maker, aren't you?  Baiting a group of Right-thinking Canucks by waving a Parilyn Carrish flag in front of us!
> 
> - Welcome aboard.  This Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Act - exciting stuff?


Actually TCBF, JBG has been playing both sides of the fence since he showed up here. Look at his previous posts. You're right though, nothing has been deep thought or relevent.

I also have suspicions about ambulance chasers from south of the border showing here, baiting and trolling. Anyone so inclined, with the slightest bit of research, will find we don't tolerate fools lightly here.


----------



## JBG (8 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Yer a natural-born trouble maker, aren't you?  Baiting a group of Right-thinking Canucks by waving a Parilyn Carrish flag in front of us!


I actually found her to be quite reflective and profound. She made some very cogent analyses of the history of our countries' relations, and of Bush as President.


			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - Welcome aboard.  This Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act - exciting stuff?


It is exciting. Actually it's been the Bankruptcy Code since 1978. It was preceded by the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 and BankruptcyAct of 1938. Subsequent iterations have not been given a new name. Perhaps we'll be ready for another "comprehensive" overhaul in 2018, on the forty-year cycle.


----------



## JBG (8 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Actually TCBF, JBG has been playing both sides of the fence since he showed up here. Look at his previous posts. You're right though, nothing has been deep thought or relevent.
> 
> I also have suspicions about ambulance chasers from south of the border showing here, baiting and trolling. Anyone so inclined, with the slightest bit of research, will find we don't tolerate fools lightly here.


I'm a bankruptcy lawyer. Personal injury lawyers are generally considered to te the "ambulance chaser" type lawyers. 

You can check my posts on www.mapleleafweb.com and www.bloggingtories.ca . I"m hardly a troll.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> I'm a bankruptcy lawyer. Personal injury lawyers are generally considered to te the "ambulance chaser" type lawyers.
> 
> You can check my posts on www.mapleleafweb.com and www.bloggingtories.ca . I"m hardly a troll.



I put all lawyers in the same basket until they prove to be normal 8)

You forgot Free Dominion 

You're more than welcome here JBG, just stay within the guidelines. We don't limit membership here according to political bent, but we do limit it if the person chooses to become a trouble maker. Enjoy.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2008)

Back to the topic at hand:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/03/laffaire-cadman.html



> *L’Affaire Cadman: A Theory of How it Went Down*
> 
> After a week of careful reading, I have a pretty good theory as to the exact origins of the Chuck Cadman “bribe.”  It’s going to take a few steps, so read carefully.  Imagine this, if you’d like, as being kind of like the ending of one of those Jerry Bruckheimer crime dramas that the public adores for some bizarre reason – flashing to differently-lit moments from the past.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I put all lawyers in the same basket until they prove to be normal 8)



May your panzer develop a severe case of rust, and, Allah willing, you be forced onto trails clouded with old camel excrement.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Mar 2008)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> May your panzer develop a severe case of rust, and, Allah willing, you be forced onto trails clouded with old camel excrement.



But you proved to be normal in Guelph 8) ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> But you proved to be normal in Guelph 8) ;D



Uhm, that was Kitchener, but with the wonderful directional sense your crew showed that night, I guess it woldn't have made a difference. :-*


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2008)

Of course there are certain members on this thread who would be shocked...._shocked_ to hear this  > I await the media circus and ethics committee probe into these events.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080310.wtrusts10/BNStory/National/home



> *Mounties were set to charge official in income trust leak*
> But court ruling gutted secrets law
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC AND STEVEN CHASE
> ...


----------



## armyvern (10 Mar 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Uhm, that was Kitchener, but with the wonderful directional sense your crew showed that night, I guess it woldn't have made a difference. :-*



I'm glad you corrected this "Guelph" tidbit -- I was beginning to think that I was losing it because I don't remember him being amongst the rowdy bunch of us in Guelph. Needless --- I know at least one_ star _ from Guelph who proved to be "not normal".


----------



## stegner (10 Mar 2008)

> Of course there are certain members on this thread who would be shocked....shocked to hear this  Evil I await the media circus and ethics committee probe into these events.



Let's wait and see who gets charged-if anyone.  Until now, despite the opposition allegations of corruption, no Liberal MP has been charged.  Nevertheless, Ralph Goodale's reputation was significantly damaged, to the extent that his leadership ambitions were precluded, at least for the last iteration, and the subsequent investigation found no evidence of wrong doing on his part.  Does he sue the RCMP for sending a leader to an NDP MP for very little reason during an election campaign, something almost unprecedented, or does he sue the opposition for libeling him or demand an apology or complain of a jihad?  No.  He takes it like a man and represents the folks in his Saskatchewan riding.   I think we need more politicians like this.   It is about bloody time the Liberals chose a leader from the west.


----------



## armyvern (11 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Let's wait and see who gets charged-if anyone.  Until now, despite the opposition allegations of corruption, no Liberal MP has been charged.  Nevertheless, Ralph Goodale's reputation was significantly damaged, to the extent that his leadership ambitions were precluded, at least for the last iteration, and the subsequent investigation found no evidence of wrong doing on his part.  Does he sue the RCMP for sending a leader to an NDP MP for very little reason during an election campaign, something almost unprecedented, or does he sue the opposition for libeling him or demand an apology or complain of a jihad?  No.  He takes it like a man and represents the folks in his Saskatchewan riding.   I think we need more politicians like this.   It is about bloody time the Liberals chose a leader from the west.



Hmmm, did you even bother to read the article?? I guess not as it clearly states exactly WHY no one was/will be charged in the Liberal Income Trust Scandal.

Precisely because the Liberal Government of the day did NOT appeal the judge's decision ... effectively striking down the Law under which they COULD be charged (and the law, co-incidently, under which they were ABOUT to be charged). Mind you, were I the governing Liberals at that time ... I wouldn't have appealed it either were I aware that charges UNDER that law were about to be laid, thus the charges would slide away unbeknowst to the Canadian public such as you and I who were probably buying up those shares being sold off beforehand.  

So, that's my take on it after reading the below ... is it possible that the Liberals governing at the time had an alterior motive for their "Non-appeal" of the judge's decision?? That being that they were aware charges were about to be laid, but that those charges would be moot and non-layable if they simply let the ruling by the judge stand and thus the law struck down?? Convince me otherwise (Geez, I'd love to hear the names of the one the charges were "pending" against, it may itself certainly be 'telling').


----------



## stegner (11 Mar 2008)

> However, a draft internal RCMP communications plan from August, 2006, showed they also planned to charge at least one other person – under the Security of Information Act.





> So, that's my take on it after reading the below ... is it possible that the Liberals governing at the time had an alterior motive for their "Non-appeal" of the judge's decision?? That being that they were aware charges were about to be laid, but that those charges would be moot and non-layable if they simply let the ruling by the judge stand and thus the law struck down?? Convince me otherwise (Geez, I'd love to hear the names of the one the charges were "pending" against, it may itself certainly be 'telling').  Wink



Armyvern- I don't think the Liberals were governing in August 2006.  In fact, I am pretty sure of it given Harper was elected on January 23, 2006.  Thus, it was not the Liberals who did not appeal it-it was the Conservatives.    You accusations of ulterior motives have no grounds.   Nevertheless, if the law is too vague or nebulous there is a legal doctrine that it may be struck down.  Those darn politicians need to take more care when they are drafting legislation.   A Triple-E Senate would perhaps help this.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 Mar 2008)

There was no ulterior motive or conspiracy: the "unrelated ruling" was to do with the Maher Arar case ... the Security of Information Act (Chretien) was deemed to be insufficiently specific WRT what powers Gov't (in this case the RCMP) had under it.  The RCMP had been under a lot of pressure from the Martin gov't to clear-up leaks, and had obtained a warrant to search a (Ottawa Citizen?) reporter's home.  It was a Freedom of the Press vs. Big Brother, and I suspect that at the time of the decision, the (new, Conservative) gov't agreed witht the judge's decision ... IIRC, Vic Toews said that they were going to generate smaller, more specific, pieces of legislation.

In short, WRT to Thucydides' article it appears that the Liberals (Brison, Goodale?) just got lucky, that's all.


----------



## DBA (15 Mar 2008)

Back on topic: the PM has filed a $2.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals. Seems to me the Liberals are so desperate to find dirt on the Conservatives and attack Harper in particular they have lost all ability to discern a real scandal from a fabricated one. It's going to bite them in the ass hard.

PM files $2.5M libel suit against Liberals in Cadman affair


----------



## RangerRay (15 Mar 2008)

If the PM had something to hide, he wouldn't risk taking the Liberals to court, where everything is laid out for all to see.

Say what you want in the House, but outside of it be prepared to pay the consequenses.

I think the Liberals stepped in the doodoo big time.


----------



## TCBF (15 Mar 2008)

- Lester Bowles Pearson must be rolling in his grave.


----------



## JBG (15 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Lester Bowles Pearson must be rolling in his grave.


Why would he have felt strongly on this issue?


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Mar 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> If the PM had something to hide, he wouldn't risk taking the Liberals to court, where everything is laid out for all to see.
> 
> Say what you want in the House, but outside of it be prepared to pay the consequenses.
> 
> I think the Liberals stepped in the doodoo big time.



By law, because he was accused of comitting a crime, the PM has to do nothing. The onus is on the accuser to prove the truth of their comment. This is where the Liberals have made their mistake. They have to prove he did wrong, not the other way around. This is the only part of defamation law that require the accuser to furnish proof.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Mar 2008)

I'm getting a kick out of Dion and company yelling about the PM being a bully because he's sueing them for libel. They know the rules and should learn to abide by them. If you libel or slander someone outside the House of Commons without proof you are open to a lawsuit, whether they are the PM or Joe Bloggins. If you libel someone inside the House and use un-Parliamentary language you get thrown out of the House to cool off for a while and given a time out to consider your unwise choice of words.


----------



## stegner (15 Mar 2008)

*But, *Dion and Co. did not _libel _Harper outside the House that is why Harper dropped them from the suit- Harper knew in this respect that he did not have a pot to piss in.   Mr. Harper have fun going after the Liberal Party though and let's hope they don't counter-sue for abuse of process.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Mar 2008)

So you are saying the Liberal Party does things without Mr. Dion knowing about it??.....................sounds like a mutiny.


----------



## Flip (15 Mar 2008)

What it seems like to me is that the Liberals sense of entitlement has gotten the better of them.  When Harper was in opposition he took a principaled and generally beneficial approach to opposing the government.  The Liberals as opposition have the Chi and their Karma out of whack, the universe is in turmoil because they aren't in charge.
The orbits have changed and the planet is overheating because they are on the wrong side of the house.  My opinion of course, but It's not hard to imagine Dion as a petulent child.   ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> *But, *Dion and Co. did not _libel _Harper outside the House that is why Harper dropped them from the suit- Harper knew in this respect that he did not have a pot to piss in.   Mr. Harper have fun going after the Liberal Party though and let's hope they don't counter-sue for abuse of process.



He is the Captain of the ship and their webpage has printed libelous things which are un-substantiated by evidence. He actually did libel Harper outside the Commons...I watched it on the CTV news...they had to press him to be specific but he finally did accuse them of attempting to offer a bribe.


----------



## stegner (15 Mar 2008)

> What it seems like to me is that the Liberals sense of entitlement has gotten the better of them.  When Harper was in opposition he took a principaled and generally beneficial approach to opposing the government.



Harper demanded on several occasions that the Governor General intervene and dismiss Martin.  Hardly principled.  If you read the previous posts on here you will see that he pulled the same stunts that Dion is now.  Except Dion is principled enough not to demand vice-regal intervention.



> I watched it on the CTV news...they had to press him to be specific but he finally did accuse them of attempting to offer a bribe.



It's not libel until the courts say so.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Harper demanded on several occasions that the Governor General intervene and dismiss Martin.  Hardly principled.  If you read the previous posts on here you will see that he pulled the same stunts that Dion is now.  Except Dion is principled enough not to demand vice-regal intervention.
> 
> It's not libel until the courts say so.



 :rofl:


----------



## sgf (15 Mar 2008)

Flip said



> When Harper was in opposition he took a principaled and generally beneficial approach to opposing the government.



got any examples of that?


----------



## stegner (15 Mar 2008)

> ROFL


Sorry what's your point?


----------



## Flip (15 Mar 2008)

> got any examples of that?



Not opposing the last liberal budget (to everyone's amazement).
I admit I might be a little biased, but it appears to me that the Liberals deserved everything they got and Harper didn't have to make stuff up, or libel or slander etc.


----------



## sgf (15 Mar 2008)

I fully agree Flip you may indeed be a little biased. Can you expand further on your statement about harper not opposing the last liberal budget? Do you mean by voting for it, much like Dion voted for the current budget??????


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Sorry what's your point?



You said "its not libel until the courts say so"

Well, seems to me that the Liberals were quick to call it bribery before a court said so. Whats good for the goose.......


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Sorry what's your point?



I wasn't making one: your latest attempt at spin-doctoring (apparently completely devoid of irony) made me laugh out loud!   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> I wasn't making one:



Sorry if i misinterpreted your " :rofl: " I had a good chuckle at stegner's comment too and i thought thats what you meant.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Sorry if i misinterpreted your " :rofl: " I had a good chuckle at stegner's comment too and i thought thats what you meant.



You are essentially correct, however I was just noting the double-standard/irony rather than really commenting on the issue (not really a debate I want to get dragged into).

(I think the "Dion is principled enough ..." part is what really sent the beer through my nose)


----------



## sgf (15 Mar 2008)

I would say that Dion and Harper are equally as principled in fact most politicans in the current game seem to be cut from the same cloth.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> It's not libel until the courts say so.



That's like saying that someone hasn't been raped or murdered until the legal system finds someone guilty. Mr Dion made a statement which defamed Mr Harper and the Liberal Party has printed those same defamatory remarks on their website. If in fact they are found to be untrue then the Liberal Party will be found guilty and be on the hook for 2.5 million dollars in damages and court costs. The point being made here is that one must be careful that they have the facts before they go off half cocked accusing people of criminal behaviour.


----------



## Flip (15 Mar 2008)

No !





> Do you mean by voting for it, much like Dion voted for the current budget???



Harper quietly and without rancour voted for the Liberal budget.
Dion, however goes to town on the conservative budget, makes a whole lot of noise which ultimately signified nothing.

Harper seems to mean what he says and seems to do what he means.
Dion, seems to have no idea what to do after he says what he thinks people want to hear.


----------



## stegner (15 Mar 2008)

> You are essentially correct, however I was just noting the double-standard/irony rather than really commenting on the issue (not really a debate I want to get dragged into).
> 
> (I think the "Dion is principled enough ..." part is what really sent the beer through my nose)





> Sorry if i misinterpreted your " ROFL " I had a good chuckle at stegner's comment too and i thought thats what you meant.



I am glad to give you gentlemen a chuckle   Of course there is a double standard it's politics.  



> That's like saying that someone hasn't been raped or murdered until the legal system finds someone guilty. Mr Dion made a statmenet which defamed Mr Harper and the Liberal Party has printed those same defamatory remarks on their website. If in fact they are found to be untrue then the Liberal Party will be found guilty and be on the hook for 2.5 million dollars in damages and court costs. The point being made here is that one must be careful that they have the facts before they go off half cocked accusing people of criminal behaviour.



That's one way at looking at it.  By the way half a politicians job is making accusations half cocked. Harper was no saint when he was in opposition and made some doozies himself.


----------



## sgf (15 Mar 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> No !
> Harper quietly and without rancour voted for the Liberal budget.
> Dion, however goes to town on the conservative budget, makes a whole lot of noise which ultimately signified nothing.
> 
> ...



more than a little biased..  

it all seemsto be in the eye of the beholder!


----------



## RangerRay (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> *But, *Dion and Co. did not _libel _Harper outside the House that is why Harper dropped them from the suit- Harper knew in this respect that he did not have a pot to piss in.   Mr. Harper have fun going after the Liberal Party though and let's hope they don't counter-sue for abuse of process.



_My guess_ is the reason the PM dropped the individual MP's from the lawsuit is so the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot their legal bill.  

Since the Liberal Party of Canada is a private organisation, it cannot ask Parliament for funding, which MP's can do when sued individually.

Therefore, the Liberal Party, not the taxpayer, will now have to pay $2.5 million, should the PM's lawsuit be successful.  

From what I heard the MP's say on TV, they accused the PM of criminal behaviour, outside the the protection of the House.  Sounds like libel to me!

I stand by my saying that if the PM had something to hide, he would not go to court where witnesses can be called to testify under oath, documents subpoenaed, etc.

Citoyen Dion _et al_. flubbed up bigtime.


----------



## sgf (15 Mar 2008)

As I pointed out a few pages back, both the libs and cons will be paying their own legal bills from their own coffers but since each party is heavily funded by taxpayers. its the taxpayer that that once again will be on the hook. 



> By TIM NAUMETZ The Canadian Press
> Wed. Mar 5 - 6:06 AM
> 
> OTTAWA — Taxpayers may be on the hook for over $1 million in legal fees if Prime Minister Stephen Harper forges ahead with his threat to sue Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and two other Liberals for libel.
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> As I pointed out a few pages back, both the libs and cons will be paying their own legal bills from their own coffers but since each party is heavily funded by taxpayers. its the taxpayer that that once again will be on the hook.



And as I said a few pages back, the notion that the taxpayers are on the hook because they fund the federal parties is horsesh*t!  Lawsuit or no lawsuit, the cost to the taxpayer is unchanged.


----------



## sgf (15 Mar 2008)

obviously i disagree..


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> obviously i disagree..



It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing; it is a simple statement of fact!   :

Let me put it this way: if I decide to buy a car tomorrow, does that mean the taxpayer has an additional cost to bear?


----------



## RangerRay (15 Mar 2008)

We may be funding the parties (which I don't think we should be doing), however the parties will be receiving the same amount of funding with the lawsuit as they were before the lawsuit (until after the next election).

Aden is right.  We are not anymore on the hook as we were before.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Except Dion is principled enough



If Dion was "principled enough" he would not have agressively abstained from Confidence votes. He would have voted against the Afghanistan mission extension and against the budget. If he had done that he would have been "principled enough" because he said he would vote against them and stated why he would do so. He was not 'principled enough" to put his money where his mouth is.

I would have at least respected that


----------



## stegner (15 Mar 2008)

Dude.  Harper did the same when he was in opposition.   That's what I am saying.  Stop picking on Dion for doing the same things that Harper did when he was in opposition.


----------



## sgf (15 Mar 2008)

selective memory


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Dude.  Harper did the same when he was in opposition.   That's what I am saying.  Stop picking on Dion for doing the same things that Harper did when he was in opposition.



This is what drives me nuts about Liberals (and why I cannot bring myself to trust them even when they say things that I agree with): on the one hand you are trying to tell us that Harper (in opposition) was negligent and lazy, but on the other he was working so hard to defeat the government that he went so far as to bribe a sitting MP (in an incomprehensibly illogical way).  There's no sense of direction or purpose (or God forbid, any notion of what might be good for the country): the Party's raison d'etre seems to amount to little more than endless mudslinging* hoping that eventually something is going to stick.

*while hypocritically claiming to be victim of same


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Stop picking on Dion for doing the same things that Harper did when he was in opposition.



So its been done before is now a proper excuse for a course of action.......ya got kids by chance?


----------



## stegner (15 Mar 2008)

> was negligent and lazy



Where did I say that?  *Nowhere.  * Don't editorialize things that have not been said.  Harper did everything in his power to get into power when he opposition leader.  Did it matter if he got in bed with the NDP and the Bloc and formed a "co-opposition"?  No.  Did it matter that he tried to involve Governor General Clarkson to do his dirty work for him? No.  Did it matter that he had Parliament adjourned earlier on a daily basis for a week?  No.  Did he abstain from votes? Yes.  Did he say things about the Liberals for which he had no evidence?  Yes.  



> There's no sense of direction or purpose (or God forbid, any notion of what might be good for the country): the Party's raison d'etre seems to amount to little more than endless mudslinging* hoping that eventually something is going to stick.



So the Conservatives blaming everything on the Liberals is fine.  How many times do they bring up the Liberals did nothing for 13 years.  Technically, that is libel too.  Do the Liberals sue?  No. 

*My point is that there is no real difference in politicians.  There are some great Conservative MP's and there are some really bad Libeal ones and vice versa.   People are people, irrespective of political stripe.  Harper is no more clean than Martin, Chretien and Mulroney.  You don't get into power being nice.   My point is that by suing, Harper is claiming a moral superiority to which he is not entitled too.  He is just of guilty of going after the Liberals wrongfully and they are after him  Being part of one political party does not guarantee any superiority whatsoever.   A politician is a politician.  * 



> So its been done before is now a proper excuse for a course of action.......ya got kids by chance?



No I don't but I can appreciate that as a parent of several children one may hear this sort of argument on a regular basis: "But he did it-so why can't I?"


----------



## armyvern (15 Mar 2008)

When one chooses to speak outside of their Parliamentary priveledge -- one is not immune ... rather stupid.

Perhaps that's the difference? No moral superiority required --- just law (and that is why one can do it and the other can't).


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> selective memory



My memory is far from selective.

Thanks for your concern though, i stopped using aluminium cups years ago.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ...
> So the Conservatives blaming everything on the Liberals is fine.  How many times do they bring up the Liberals did nothing for 13 years.  Technically, that is libel too.  Do the Liberals sue?  No.
> ...



No it isn't; it is, in fact, just part of the _acceptable_ part of the political discourse. Had the Conservatives called any Liberal a liar or a crook - accused someone of offering a bribe, for example - then that would have been _unacceptable_ and the Speaker would have demanded a retraction or expelled the offending member from the House. That's why the Liberals didn't sue: there was never any libel.

The Liberal website, in the opinion of Mr. Harper's lawyers anyway, libels him because it does accuse him of offering a bribe, it calls him a crook. He has *no choice* but to sue; to do anything else is to implicitly accept that there is a shred of truth in the Liberals' accusations.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (15 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Where did I say that?  *Nowhere.  * Don't editorialize things that have not been said.  Harper did everything in his power to get into power when he opposition leader.  Did it matter if he got in bed with the NDP and the Bloc and formed a "co-opposition"?  No.  Did it matter that he tried to involve Governor General Clarkson to do his dirty work for him? No.  Did it matter that he had Parliament adjourned earlier on a daily basis for a week?  No.  Did he abstain from votes? Yes.  Did he say things about the Liberals for which he had no evidence?  Yes.
> 
> So the Conservatives blaming everything on the Liberals is fine.  How many times do they bring up the Liberals did nothing for 13 years.  Technically, that is libel too.  Do the Liberals sue?  No.
> 
> ...


 Continually abstaining from votes and refusing to engage in actual debate is, as the official Opposition, negligent.  Using libel and slander instead of principled debate is lazy.  There seems to be a lot of legal-minded people (of which I am not one) who seem to think that Harper's suit has some merit: the facts contradict your assertions and you continue to espouse them.  You defend everything Liberal, right or wrong, and when confronted with the irrefutable, digress into half-baked "Harper is/was just as bad" ad hominems.  I guess that what blind faith is all about, eh?  People are people, but not all people have a single-minded lust for power for its own sake (although if you run in Liberal circles, you could be forgiven for thinking that!).

Just once I would like to see a Liberal who used the good of the _country _, rather than the Party, as the acid test of wrong and right.


----------



## stegner (16 Mar 2008)

> Continually abstaining from votes and refusing to engage in actual debate is, as the official Opposition, negligent.  Using libel and slander instead of principled debate is lazy.  There seems to be a lot of legal-minded people (of which I am not one) who seem to think that Harper's suit has some merit: the facts contradict your assertions and you continue to espouse them.  You defend everything Liberal, right or wrong, and when confronted with the irrefutable, digress into half-baked "Harper is/was just as bad" ad hominems.  I guess that what blind faith is all about, eh?  People are people, but not all people have a single-minded lust for power for its own sake (although if you run in Liberal circles, you could be forgiven for thinking that!).
> 
> Just once I would like to see a Liberal who used the good of the country , rather than the Party, as the acid test of wrong and right.



I think you read my post again especially the bold part bcause you missed out on some things that address what you have noted.  You know the part where I talk about how some Liberals are bad and some Conservatives are good.  I am willing to examine the Liberals critically.   I have never said I would blindly follow Liberals and I challenge you to find otherwise.  Heck my favorite Prime Minister is John Diefenbaker and certainly not that son of a gun Trudeau.  Chretien did some really dumb things-but he did some things not too bad.  Martin simply dithered too much-though I think he was well intentioned.  He also did the CF a great service by advising in the GG to appoint Gen. Rick Hillier as CDS.  You have provided absolutely nothing that is irrefutabable and neither have I.   I am happy to debate logical arguments that are supported by evidence and I imagine you are too so let's keep it at that and leave the ad hominems out of it.  If you want to make a point or refute my point please do use evidence and not vague accusations of people who do not agree with you as being "half-baked."  If we are so"half-baked" there must be ample evidence to support this-*so use it and not rhetoric*.   And by way all politicians have a single-minded lust for power and this includes Bloc, Liberals, NDP, Green, Conservative and those flying yoga guys.  I have heard complaints on here that the opposition always votes against the government.  Here is a opposition leader that is not and there are complaints.  Stephane Dion could have caused an election and possibly won it.  The polls say he has just a good of chance as Stephen Harper.  He chose not too because Canada has already two elections since 2004 and to have another at such an earlier point would be bad for the country.   That is an example of a guy and a Liberal putting his own ambitions behind the interest of the country.  So you may question his unwillingness to defeat the government on confidence measures.  But compare the number of confidence measures proposed by Paul Martin and Stephen Harper.   Martin had less confidence measures so there were less opportunities for Stephen Harper to avoid them.  Not so for Dion, as Harper has way more confidence measures (remember in the fall when he said every measure was a confidence measure?) and it is not as easy for Stephane Dion to avoid them, because again, an election at this point is not in the interest of the country.


----------



## JBG (16 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Dude.  Harper did the same when he was in opposition.   That's what I am saying.  Stop picking on Dion for doing the same things that Harper did when he was in opposition.


I don't want to belabor the following facts:
Canada had just had an election about 7-8 months before that vote;
The CPC Policty Convention was a week away
Harper had just become leader;  and
Harper was gentlemanly enough not to force an election while the LPOC was leaderless and/or when Dion was very new.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> He chose not too because Canada has already two elections since 2004 and to have another at such an earlier point would be bad for the country.   That is an example of a guy and a Liberal putting his own ambitions behind the interest of the country.



 :rofl:


----------



## Yrys (16 Mar 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> Just once I would like to see a Liberal who used the good of the _country _, rather than the Party, as the acid test of wrong and right.



I think CDN Aviator quote of stegner prove that for Liberal, good of the party IS good of the country...


----------



## RangerRay (16 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Did it matter that he tried to involve Governor General Clarkson to do his dirty work for him?



IIRC, Martin ignored a non-confidence measure and continued to govern.  The Opposition was within it's right to petition the Governor General in that case.

As for President Dion of Abstainistan, I could understand it if it were right after an election (a la the former leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, PM Harper).  However, we are well into one of the longest running minority governments where the government has no coalition partner.  If Citoyen Dion were such a principled man, and if PM Harper is such a "threat to the planet" (paraphrased) then he would join the other opposition parties in tossing out the Tories, polls be damned.  

When the Martin minority was defeated, the polls showed that status quo would result, yet that did not stop the Tories from standing on principle and defeating a government that they felt was bad for the country.  If the Tories are as bad for the country as the Liberals say they are, then they should be defeating this government at the first opportunity, instead of hiding behind the excuse "Canadians don't want and election".


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Mar 2008)

The fact of the matter is that it's the Liberal Party who do not want an election. They are broke and have an extremely weak leader who will not fare well under the harsh glare of a 60 day campaign. Contiual gaffes and a lack of coherent policy, other than "see how dedicated I am to Kyoto...I named my dog after it," will hand the disciplined Conservative machine of "a policy a day" the majority they long for. The majority of the Liberal party know they have to bide their time and hope for an opportunity to knife Dion and cast him aside or hope that Mr Harper makes a huge mistake that they can use to fight an election on and rally some financial support for the party.


----------



## stegner (16 Mar 2008)

> ROFL





> I think CDN Aviator quote of stegner prove that for Liberal, good of the party IS good of the country...



What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Conservative folks want an election so Harper gets another mandate.  That is not as good for the country as it may or may not be for the Conservative Party.   Are Canadians stampeding on the grounds of Parliament, or the office of the MP's or in the streets demanding an election? Doesn't it bother you folks in your day to day lives all the peoples, strangers even, possibly tearing out their hair and crying, coming up to you saying gosh darn I wish there was an election? Well I think you have your answer of whether Canadian want an election.     



> I don't want to belabor the following facts:
> 
> * Canada had just had an election about 7-8 months before that vote;
> * The CPC Policty Convention was a week away
> ...




Fair enough.  Though if you recall that the leaderless Libs were ahead of the polls were ahead of Harper.  If Harper had called an election when there was no Liberal leader or when Dion was very new there would have been backlash similar to the backlash Chretien got for taking advantage of Stockwell Day in 2000.   Harper who had complained rather much about this would have looked hypocritical had he taken advantage.      




> IIRC, Martin ignored a non-confidence measure and continued to govern.  The Opposition was within it's right to petition the Governor General in that cas




If it was truly a confidence vote the GG would have intervened.  A confidence vote is not a confidence vote until the GG accepts its a confidence vote even though it might be nothing less than a confidence vote.  Harper's attempt to involve the GG began before the May 10, 2005 vote though.  




> As for President Dion of Abstainistan, I could understand it if it were right after an election (a la the former leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, PM Harper).  However, we are well into one of the longest running minority governments where the government has no coalition partner.  If Citoyen Dion were such a principled man, and if PM Harper is such a "threat to the planet" (paraphrased) then he would join the other opposition parties in tossing out the Tories, polls be damned.



It's up to Dion's discretion to decide whether or not he will support the government.  If you folks don't like it join the Liberal Party and demand Dion intervene.  In all honesty,   I think his unwillingness to vote is really unnerving for the Conservatives.  They want an election badly but do not want to call it themselves.  That is why they have so many confidence measures.   Dion is not going to do them any favors until he is good and ready.  I don't blame this approach.  The longer he stays in the more scandals emerge from the Harper team (which is inevitable for all governments) and which can be used as ammunition in an election.  If Harper mismanages the economy and the unemployment levels rise that translates into votes for Dion in the next election. 

Like it or not the Liberals are supporting the Conservative government that many of you enjoy so why are you complaining?  Given that Harper has capitulated to Dion on things like Afghanistan and other policies, the Liberals are a _de facto _ Coalition partner as their support is contingent on Harper compromising.  Be patient though, by law there will be election sometime in Fall 2009.  Can you folks wait till then?


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2008)

Since GG's have been very highly paid patronage posts for decades, and the then sitting GG was an ex journalist, I suspect Her Excellency was uncertain of what to do and unwilling to use the reserve powers inherent in the office. The King Byng affair is also a powerful cautionary, although Lord Byng used the reserve powers of the Vice Regal office correctly, he was pilloried over the affair and subsequent office holders have been rather gun shy since.

The repeated assertions that "Harper abstained too" is becoming tiresome. *How many times* did Steven Harper and the CPC caucus abstain from a vote while in opposition? *How many times* has Mr Dion and the Liberal caucus abstained while in opposition? Get the point?

You and many MSM pundits claim the CPC actually wants an election. As in any other case, the burden of proof lies on you and the punditry. The CPC is governing and passing its legislation with the current parliament, I expect the Prime Minister is content to continue to govern until Oct 2009 so long as he is able to pass his legislative agenda.

As noted in another thread, the Conservative government is making far reaching changes to Canadian society through a program of incremental changes; it would seem to me that the best way to ensure they take root and become more difficult to overturn is through remaining in power as long as possible. If it also helps the CPC tactically through the immolation of the Liberal party through mismanagement of their resources and internal feuds, then so much the better.


----------



## sgf (16 Mar 2008)

> Since GG's have been very highly paid patronage posts for decades, and the then sitting GG was an ex journalist, I suspect Her Excellency was uncertain of what to do and unwilling to use the reserve powers inherent in the office.



What would being a journalist have to do with her being uncertain of what to do? What qualifications do you think would ensure a GG be certain of what to do and do you think the current GG is qualified?

Edited to add, there wont be any electiion until the Conservatives are doing better in the polls than they were when they won the last election.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Mar 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> What would being a journalist have to do with her being uncertain of what to do? What qualifications do you think would ensure a GG be certain of what to do and do you think the current GG is qualified?
> 
> Edited to add, there wont be any electiion until the Conservatives are doing better in the polls than they were when they won the last election.



It doesn't matter how well they are doing in the polls they passed legislation that the election dates are fixed unless there is a motion of non-confidence that defeats them. Mr Harper cannot call an election until Oct of 09. The calling of an election is entirely in the hands of the opposition under this legislation. Of course the Government could introduce a confidence motion that is so outlandish that the Libs have to defeat them....but so far they've shown little appetite for that. They just let their own bill get defeated (on RESPs) so how ready are they to fight an election?


----------



## stegner (16 Mar 2008)

> What would being a journalist have to do with her being uncertain of what to do? What qualifications do you think would ensure a GG be certain of what to do and do you think the current GG is qualified?



Indeed.  Thucydides-I think you should read Madame Clarkson's memoirs before you speculate.   If you had read her memoirs you would have seen that she knew her role better than most gave her credit for.  I applauded her term especially the consideration she gave the CF.  



> The repeated assertions that "Harper abstained too" is becoming tiresome. How many times did Steven Harper and the CPC caucus abstain from a vote while in opposition? How many times has Mr Dion and the Liberal caucus abstained while in opposition? Get the point?



*As is the repeated assertion that Dion is abstaining*-after all you enjoy a Conservative government so just precisely why do you object to him supporting the government?   I do get your point, but I had one of my own that many have chosen to ignore.  How many confidence votes did Martin propose and how many did Harper propose as PM?   Do you get that point?  Harper had to abstain less because there were less confidence measures proposed under Martin.  But I agree enough with the abstaining debate let's stop it.     



> It doesn't matter how well they are doing in the polls they passed legislation that the election dates are fixed unless there is a motion of non-confidence that defeats them. Mr Harper cannot call an election until Oct of 09.


  

Peter van Loan has contested that the new legislation prevents the government from calling an election.  The Conservatives assert that Harper is free to advise the GG to dissolve Parliament at any point and Her Excellency is free to oblige the PM. Any legislation that would hamstrung the ability of the GG to call elections would be unconstitutional.  


Um is it just me but have we gotten off topic.  Aren't we supposed to chat about Chuck Cadman on here?  In any event.


----------



## sgf (16 Mar 2008)

Back on Cadman, this article was in todays Herald



> OTTAWA — Dan Wallace, one of a handful of people who might know who offered what to Chuck Cadman, is not available for interviews.
> 
> Mr. Wallace, a slim, sandy-haired, middle-aged man with a moustache and glasses, was Mr. Cadman’s executive assistant on May 17, 2005, when the terminally ill MP received two Conservative visitors in his Parliament Hill office.
> 
> ...



Read the complete article here

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1044086.html


----------



## JBG (16 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Conservative folks want an election so Harper gets another mandate.  That is not as good for the country as it may or may not be for the Conservative Party.   Are Canadians stampeding on the grounds of Parliament, or the office of the MP's or in the streets demanding an election? Doesn't it bother you folks in your day to day lives all the peoples, strangers even, possibly tearing out their hair and crying, coming up to you saying gosh darn I wish there was an election? Well I think you have your answer of whether Canadian want an election.


That's not the way people normally act.



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  Though if you recall that the leaderless Libs were ahead of the polls were ahead of Harper.  If Harper had called an election when there was no Liberal leader or when Dion was very new there would have been backlash similar to the backlash Chretien got for taking advantage of Stockwell Day in 2000.   Harper who had complained rather much about this would have looked hypocritical had he taken advantage.


It often happens in polling that people will say that they'd vote for "a Democrat" ahead of Bush (guess who won 2004 in spite of those polls) or "a Liberal" instead of Harper. Once you fill in the blank with a real person the choice becomes harder.


			
				stegner said:
			
		

> If it was truly a confidence vote the GG would have intervened.  A confidence vote is not a confidence vote until the GG accepts its a confidence vote even though it might be nothing less than a confidence vote.  Harper's attempt to involve the GG began before the May 10, 2005 vote though.


I seem to recall it was a motion to schedule a money item vote and not a true confidence vote. In other words it was a vote to hold a vote, and I think the Speaker (not the GG but the Speaker makes that decision) correctly decided it was not a confidence vote. 



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> They (the CPC) want an election badly but do not want to call it themselves.  That is why they have so many confidence measures.


Under the "fixed election date" law my understanding is that the Government can no longer unilaterally "advise" a dropping of the writ. The Government must lose Parliament's confidence to deviate from the October 19, 2009 date.


			
				stegner said:
			
		

> Like it or not the Liberals are supporting the Conservative government that many of you enjoy so why are you complaining?  Given that Harper has capitulated to Dion on things like Afghanistan and other policies, the Liberals are a _de facto _ Coalition partner as their support is contingent on Harper compromising.  Be patient though, by law there will be election sometime in Fall 2009.  Can you folks wait till then?


Because the Liberals are making fools of themselves and, to the extent any outside Canada pay attention (as do I) they're making fools of the country.


----------



## JBG (16 Mar 2008)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter how well they are doing in the polls they passed legislation that the election dates are fixed unless there is a motion of non-confidence that defeats them. Mr Harper cannot call an election until Oct of 09. The calling of an election is entirely in the hands of the opposition under this legislation. Of course the Government could introduce a confidence motion that is so outlandish that the Libs have to defeat them....but so far they've shown little appetite for that. They just let their own bill get defeated (on RESPs) so how ready are they to fight an election?


I think the CPC has done their level best to promulgate bills that the Liberals would gag on. Their repeated abstentions, walk outs, sick outs etc. are comedic.


----------



## stegner (16 Mar 2008)

> Under the "fixed election date" law my understanding is that the Government can no longer unilaterally "advise" a dropping of the writ. The Government must lose Parliament's confidence to deviate from the October 19, 2009 date.





> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=301407
> 
> 
> Harper ready to ask GG to pull plug
> ...





> Because the Liberals are making fools of themselves and, to the extent any outside Canada pay attention (as do I) they're making fools of the country.



Um okay...that is all very subjective and you have provided no concrete evidence.    

*Once again this thread is about Chuck Cadman and once again have gotten a far distance from the topic at hand.* Do we need to have a new topic?


----------



## JBG (16 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Um okay...that is all very subjective and you have provided no concrete evidence.
> 
> *Once again this thread is about Chuck Cadman and once again have gotten a far distance from the topic at hand.* Do we need to have a new topic?


I think that any attempt by Harper to have used Senate obstructionism as a grounds for an election would have been a stretch. On the other hand it would have triggered a beneficial constitutional crisis well beyond issues of fixed election law. As far as the connection to Cadman it's remote, except that Cadman-gate seems to concern the method by which the CPC came to power (ignoring Stronach-gate obviously). This thread seems to have morphed into a "Harper - whence he came where's he going" thread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> I think that any attempt by Harper to have used Senate obstructionism as a grounds for an election would have been a stretch. On the other hand it would have triggered a beneficial constitutional crisis well beyond issues of fixed election law ...



Why and why?

Constitutionally, (according to the important *conventional* bit, not the second rate written bit) the GG's (queen's actually) Privy Council Committee (the cabinet) can only act for her so long as it has the confidence of parliament. Generally, it is the _Commons_' confidence that matters but, while I don't know of any cases where, in a Westminster style parliamentary democracy, an inter-cameral dispute has triggered an election* I'm not sure it's a "stretch" to think that the GG might well see it as a case of "her" government being unable to prosecute her (its) programme because it lacks the confidence of *parliament*.

I can see no "crisis" potential in any situation. The relative powers and duties of the PM and the GG are quite well defined, here as a result of the _King-Byng thing_, and more broadly and recently as a result of the 1975 Kerr-Whitlam dispute. The sovereign's *power* is undiminished but it may be still be constrained by the *political* needs of her PM.

The difficulty facing any PM is not the GG (although going to her/him may be a crap shoot and may, ultimately, depend on the GG's individual and even idiosyncratic reading of the real Constitution - the unwritten part); rather it is the people and their perception of the PM's motives. If, as in the case of Kerr-Whitlam, the PM is in a weak position then the GG's *will*, if it can be painted as being in the popular interest, can prevail but, generally, the people are most likely to give "their' elected representative the benefit of the doubt in most disputes with an appointed "sovereign." Thus, the calculation is of political practicality, not of constitutionality.

----------
* But Senate _obstructionism_ was an issue in Australia in 1975


----------



## stegner (16 Mar 2008)

> "Harper - whence he came where's he going"



What a delightful name for a thread  



> The difficulty facing any PM is not the GG (although going to her/him may be a crap shoot and may, ultimately, depend on the GG's individual and even idiosyncratic reading of the real Constitution - the unwritten part); rather it is the people and their perception of the PM's motives. If, as in the case of Kerr-Whitlam, the PM is in a weak position then the GG's will, if it can be painted as being in the popular interest, can prevail but, generally, the people are most likely to give "their' elected representative the benefit of the doubt in most disputes with an appointed "sovereign." Thus, the calculation is of political practicality, not of constitutionality.



Bravo!  I could not have put it better myself.


----------



## JBG (16 Mar 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Why and why?
> 
> Constitutionally, (according to the important *conventional* bit, not the second rate written bit) the GG's (queen's actually) Privy Council Committee (the cabinet) can only act for her so long as it has the confidence of parliament. Generally, it is the _Commons_' confidence that matters but, while I don't know of any cases where, in a Westminster style parliamentary democracy, an inter-cameral dispute has triggered an election* I'm not sure it's a "stretch" to think that the GG might well see it as a case of "her" government being unable to prosecute her (its) programme because it lacks the confidence of *parliament*.
> 
> ...



Kerr-Whitlam was actually what I had in mind. In this case, though, the GG does not have the option of a "double-dissolution" or dissolution of the Senate as well as the HOC since the Senate is appointed. So a breakdown in the ability of the HOC/Senate to carry our "her" program as a result of a Senate meltdown would not be solved by an HOC election, unless the GG thought that the Liberals (the party dominating the Senate) would win.

In 1975, it was pretty obviously that Labor was going to lose to the Liberals (the Aussie analog to the CPC) so an election would have, and in fact did solve the problem. The reason why it would have some "crisis" aspects is that without a Senate restructuring (or as happened the Senate yielding) Canada's in uncharted waters.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The difficulty facing any PM is not the GG (although going to her/him may be a crap shoot and may, ultimately, depend on the GG's individual and even idiosyncratic reading of the real Constitution - the unwritten part); rather it is the people and their perception of the PM's motives. If, as in the case of Kerr-Whitlam, the PM is in a weak position then the GG's *will*, if it can be painted as being in the popular interest, can prevail but, generally, the people are most likely to give "their' elected representative the benefit of the doubt in most disputes with an appointed "sovereign." Thus, the calculation is of political practicality, not of constitutionality.


The use of the GG as a "deux ex machina" or outside force is a one-shot option, not readily repeatable. Just as Kerr or Byng on that point. My memory of 1975, from reading the New York Times, was that there was some fear that Whitlam would take AU down the "Fidel Castro road", i.e. never subject himself to an election. That was the subtext at the time. Remember, at that point in history, the trend was away from democratic rule, Chile, India and Turkey being then-recent examples. Greece, Spain and Portugal, in the process of returning to democracy, turned out fortunately to the straws in the wind for the eventual worldwide resurgence of democracy but at the time many were pessimistic about democracy's future. Nixon, Trudeau and others skirted democratic forms with some regularity. We cannot say that the Senate is obstructing things in Canada to the extent that the GG needs to start doing the heavy lifting. This GG would also be a bad choice for that job.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * But Senate _obstructionism_ was an issue in Australia in 1975


See above. The Senate had virtually all of "supply", i.e. the budget, tied up. Given what was then 10% annual inflation continuation under old budgets was not workable.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Mar 2008)

"It is reasonable to conclude that the Tories have put the fear of God into Mr. Wallace."

No, ....it would be reasonable, and in fact Stephen Maher is being an absolute stooge here, to assume that he is going to get subpoenaed and just like anyone with a brain would do, he saves it for the courts.

Just the fact a *cough* journalist wrote that line is pathetic.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> ...
> ... there was some fear that Whitlam would take AU down the "Fidel Castro road", i.e. never subject himself to an election. That was the subtext at the time. Remember, at that point in history, the trend was away from democratic rule, Chile, India and Turkey being then-recent examples. Greece, Spain and Portugal, in the process of returning to democracy, turned out fortunately to the straws in the wind for the eventual worldwide resurgence of democracy but at the time many were pessimistic about democracy's future. Nixon, Trudeau and others skirted democratic forms with some regularity ...



With respect, that's arrant nonsense.

Comparing Australia _circa_ 1975 to Greece or Portugal, or Trudeau and Nixon to Franco/Arias Navarro/Saurez is the equivalent of seeing "reds under the beds."

Trudeau may have been (was, actually) a nincompoop, and Nixon may have condoned _dirty tricks_ for partisan political advantage (as did George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries) but neither, so far as my readings can tell, ever contemplated a _de Gaulle_ like _putsch_.


----------



## JBG (16 Mar 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> With respect, that's arrant nonsense.
> 
> Comparing Australia _circa_ 1975 to Greece or Portugal, or Trudeau and Nixon to Franco/Arias Navarro/Saurez is the equivalent of seeing "reds under the beds."
> 
> Trudeau may have been (was, actually) a nincompoop, and Nixon may have condoned _dirty tricks_ for partisan political advantage (as did George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries) but neither, so far as my readings can tell, ever contemplated a _de Gaulle_ like _putsch_.


I am about 7/8 of the way through Nixon's autobiography and I must respectfully and totally disagree with you on this one. At the time, the people who no longer believed in democracy were regularly quoting Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson's dictum that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". Nixon's administration regularly engaged in break-ins and espionage against their political "enemies" as well as abuse of the IRS audit functions. As far as Trudeau, can you say "FLQ"? He virtually declared martial law in Quebec to stop a small, irregular, rag-tag and pathetic group. Democracy was on far shakier grounds than you realize back in the period 1965-1975.


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Mar 2008)

_As far as Trudeau, can you say "FLQ"? He virtually declared martial law in Quebec to stop a small, irregular, rag-tag and pathetic group. Democracy was on far shakier grounds than you realize back in the period 1965-1975. 
_  

JBG, with respect your above statement is hogwash. I don't know your experience with the FLQ during the sixties and seventies, but I lived through it. You used the phrase "virtually declared martial law" which perhaps indicates some understanding of Canadian law. If not, there is no, repeat no, provision for martial law in Canada. What happened was that the Government of Quebec requistioned support from the Canadian Forces under Part XI of the National Defence Act. The acting Chief of Defence Staff was required to respond, but the level of support provided was based on his assessment. More or less at the same time, the forces were deployed in support of the RCMP to protect national assets in the National Capital.

In no case did the military call the shots; instead the forces acted in support of the civil authorities.

Now, things were very tense. A diplomat had been kidnapped, a provincial minister had been abducted and murdered and there was widespread civil unrest including a massive pro-FLQ rally in the Paul Sauve Arena. This was 1970, remember, and memories of Watts and Detroit were fresh in everyone's mind, while the troubles had started in Northern Ireland. In my opinion the governments of the day acted prudently and had wide spread support across the country.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> Nixon's administration regularly engaged in break-ins and espionage against their political "enemies" as well as abuse of the IRS audit functions. As far as Trudeau, can you say "FLQ"? He virtually declared martial law in Quebec to stop a small, irregular, rag-tag and pathetic group. Democracy was on far shakier grounds than you realize back in the period 1965-1975.



Which is what I said: partisan political dirty tricks; but it is a huge, and totally unjustified leap, to equate that with the Greek colonels.

Like Old Sweat I was here for the '60s and '70s - thankfully we got over the real anti-democratic fantasies in the '50s, when the various and sundry lunatic fringes, including Duplesis in Canada, did remind us all of the need to be watchful of our 'leaders.'


----------



## RangerRay (16 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Like it or not the Liberals are supporting the Conservative government that many of you enjoy so why are you complaining?  Given that Harper has capitulated to Dion on things like Afghanistan and other policies, the Liberals are a _de facto _ Coalition partner as their support is contingent on Harper compromising.  Be patient though, by law there will be election sometime in Fall 2009.  Can you folks wait till then?



Actually, I'm quite enjoying that the Liberals have retreated to Abstainistan.  The Tories are implementing their agenda because of it.  Everything I've read indicates that PM Harper would prefer that the government not fall until the fall of 2009.

However, were I a Liberal supporter, I'd be seriously pissed.  We have the official opposition stamping around, screaming blue-bloody murder about the government, yet they will not lift a finger to defeat it.  It makes them look foolish, which I quite enjoy.  ;D


----------



## stegner (16 Mar 2008)

> However, were I a Liberal supporter, I'd be seriously pissed.  We have the official opposition stamping around, screaming blue-bloody murder about the government, yet they will not lift a finger to defeat it.  It makes them look foolish, which I quite enjoy.  Grin



As a Liberal supporter I am not too upset about the abstaining.  Heck most of the Canadian electorate abstains from voting come election time.  In the recent Alberta election (Harper's 'home' province) 66% of the electorate abstained.  Why should we expect any better from our representatives when we as voters are not much better.  What does grinds my gears are the parachute candidates that Dion has used.  BOOOOOO.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> As a Liberal supporter *I am not too upset about the abstaining*.  Heck most of the Canadian electorate abstains from voting come election time.  In the recent Alberta election (Harper's 'home' province) 66% of the electorate abstained.  Why should we expect any better from our representatives when we as voters are not much better.  What does grinds my gears are the parachute candidates that Dion has used.  BOOOOOO.



Nor am I; keeping parliament alive and working is the best course open for both the Conservatives and Liberals right now. There is no issue requiring an election and Canadians seem to be telling the pollsters that they see little difference between the left and centre wings of the Conservatives and the centre and right wings of the Liberals – and neither do I. I think Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff could both serve in a _national unity_ cabinet led by either Stephan Harper or Jim Prentice. Equally, I believe people like Bernier, Flaherty and MacKay could all serve in a _national unity_ cabinet led by e.g. Martha Hall-Findlay. 

There are some pretty _socialistic_ Liberals and some pretty _liberal_ (all that independent, individualistic, self reliant stuff) Tories – maybe ⅓ of each caucus? – but I cannot find too much to distinguish the policies that most Conservatives would find acceptable from those that would pass muster with most Liberals.

The current fairly rosy fiscal situation – annual surpluses being used to pay down the debt, etc – is the result of the combined efforts of Conservatives (Mulroney/Wilson who balanced the _programme_ budget) and Liberals (Chrétien/Martin who tackled the deficit that remained mainly by cancelling the shared cost programme spending with Alberta, BC and Ontario). There is not much in either the law and order or foreign affairs portfolios to divide Conservatives from Liberals.

If the next government is, as I expect it to be, another minority then it will not matter much if it is Conservative or Liberal. Only back-to-back Conservative majorities or Liberal majorities under completly new management (none of Dion, Ignatieff or Rae) can, I think make the sorts of changes that I believe are necessary to restore Canada to some semblance of the status (social, economic and political) we held prior to 1967.

I hope we get back-to-back-to-back Conservative majorities because I think they have, broadly, a better view of what Canada should and can be than do the Liberals.


----------



## JBG (16 Mar 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff could both serve in a _national unity_ cabinet led by either Stephan Harper or Jim Prentice. Equally, I believe people like Bernier, Flaherty and MacKay could all serve in a _national unity_ cabinet led by e.g. Martha Hall-Findlay.
> 
> There are some pretty _socialistic_ Liberals and some pretty _liberal_ (all that independent, individualistic, self reliant stuff) Tories – maybe ⅓ of each caucus? – but I cannot find too much to distinguish the policies that most Conservatives would find acceptable from those that would pass muster with most Liberals.


And why the need to go to a national unity government, which is typical of wartime or rep-by-prop? It's very suffocating as far as democracy.


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If the next government is, as I expect it to be, another minority then it will not matter much if it is Conservative or Liberal. Only back-to-back Conservative majorities or Liberal majorities under completly new management (none of Dion, Ignatieff or Rae) can, I think make the sorts of changes that I believe are necessary to restore Canada to some semblance of the status (social, economic and political) we held prior to 1967.
> 
> I hope we get back-to-back-to-back Conservative majorities because I think they have, broadly, a better view of what Canada should and can be than do the Liberals.


Why couldn't a Conservative majority accomplish the same? Did the back to back to back LPC majorities of 1993, 1997 and 2000 make those changes?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> And why the need to go to a national unity government, which is typical of wartime or rep-by-prop? It's very suffocating as far as democracy.Why couldn't a Conservative majority accomplish the same? Did the back to back to back LPC majorities of 1993, 1997 and 2000 make those changes?



Traditionally, in Westminster type parliamentary democracies, the majority parties only form coalitions in a crisis or when one or the other agrees to be absorbed. It is _common_ (at least common enough) for one majority party to coalesce with a minority party to secure a stable mandate but a coalition of two majority parties is, I think, out of the question. Thus, for my example, (Liberals in Tory cabinet, Tories in a Liberal cabinet) only a _national unity_ scenario works.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2008)

Parties do come and go (how many people remember the CCF or the Progressive party?) In the UK the Liberal-Democrats are the hyphenated byproduct of a merger between two parties, and new Classical Liberal parties are forming in Canada like the Wild Rose Alliance and Reform Ontario. And of course the current CPC is the end result of the Reform Party absorbing the federal Progressive Conservative party (with a tiny rump of "Progressive Canadians" still out there).

Based on the current breakdown of the political scene, if there were to be any mergers or alliances at the Federal Level now it will probably be a merger on the left (Liberal-Green?) Maybe we should be thinking about who would work well with Jack Layton?

Unless there is a crisis of major proportions, I see little prospect or need of a national unity cabinet or government forming (and considering we went to war on 9/11 and that didn't trigger any calls for a unity government, the level of crisis will have to be very severe indeed).


----------



## JBG (17 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Unless there is a crisis of major proportions, I see little prospect or need of a national unity cabinet or government forming (and considering we went to war on 9/11 and that didn't trigger any calls for a unity government, the level of crisis will have to be very severe indeed).


Of course on 911 the Liberals had a strong majority and there was no need for unpopular wartime measures such as the draft, rationing, or price controls that would make traditional Westminister-type politics (imagine a government falling on the need for wartime rationing, and chaos during the election period).


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2008)

We Canadians, don’t have much experience with _unity_ or _national_ (coalition) governments, at least not at the federal level.

Our American neighbours are much more accustomed to the idea of bipartisan legislative action – sometimes to address major crises, and sometimes to cope with a _divided_ government: one party in the White House another leading one or both legislative chambers.

The British were fairly radical in the 20th century with parties splitting and merging – sometimes (like “Home Rule”) on specific issues, sometimes mirroring the changes ongoing in British society at large. They had nation governments – notably the three _national_ (or coalition) governments of Ramsey MacDonald (’31-’35), Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain (’35-’40) and Winston Churchill (’40-’45). (Note that, Constitution be damned, there was no general election in Britain between Jun 35 and Jul 45.)

The British have also been far more _radical_ than the ‘stick-in-the-mud’ Canadians when it comes to party discipline – extending well into this century.

Woops, thanks Aden_Gatling. I have amended this and the first footnote - I double counted 30 seats.  :-[  Despite the few real differences between the center and left of the Conservative Party and the right and center of the Liberal Party there is scant interest in any sort of _national_ government. Both parties (the party faithful, anyway) are persuaded that majorities are possible, despite the  struggle of earning 155 seats when, at any moment, only about 240 (of 308) are “available.”*

I believe the Conservatives (so long as Stephen Harper is leader) do have a “hidden agenda” that can only be implemented during successive Conservative majority government. I think this agenda revolves fiscally prudent but *massively* decentralized economic administration, a “hands off’ social agenda (that, _de facto_ spells greater ‘liberty’ for religious groups – so long as they don’t intrude into the ‘space’ of other social groups) and increased emphasis on the national government’s core responsibilities, specified in §VI of the Constitution. I’m guessing that most Liberals, despite their relative proximity on specific policies to the Conservatives, are not supportive of such an agenda. The Liberals, since Laurier, have been believers in a strong central, as were the _”Fathers of Confederation.”_ Unfortunately (or not) the authors of the Constitution, some faceless Victorian civil servants, created one of the most decentralized federations in the world.**
   
----------
* That assumes that neither of the _majority parties_ get 30 seats in Québec which are the property of the BQ and 10 others that are solid NDP – reducing the “available” seats to 270±. It is also likely that each of the Liberals and Conservatives has an irreducible core of 30 seats thus reducing the available seats to 240±. While 155 is 50%+1 of 308, 125 is nearly 60% of 210 – still a strong showing by Canadian standards.
** I have a respectable reference for that at home – which I’ll be happy to provide if someone reminds me on/about 1 Apr 08


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Mar 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Despite the few real differences between the center and left of the Conservative Party and the right and center of the Liberal Party there is scant interest in any sort of national government. Both parties (the party faithful, anyway) are persuaded that majorities are possible, despite the Herculean struggle of earning 155 seats when, at any moment, only about 240 (of 308) are “available.”*
> ----------
> * That assumes that neither of the _majority parties_ get 30 seats in Québec which are the property of the BQ and 10 others that are solid NDP – reducing the “available” seats to 270±. It is also likely that each of the Liberals and Conservatives has an irreducible core of 30 seats thus reducing the available seats to 240±. While 155 is 50%+1 of 308, 155 is nearly 65% of 240 – a true landslide by Canadian standards.



Herculean struggle?  Look at it this way: if the "irreducible core" is 30 seats (i.e., guaranteed minimum) either of the major parties would only need an additional 125 of 210 "available" seats: slightly less than 60%.  Ergo, either can enjoy complete tyranny with the support of only 60% of the undecided electorate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> Herculean struggle?  Look at it this way: if the "irreducible core" is 30 seats (i.e., guaranteed minimum) either of the major parties would only need an additional 125 of 210 "available" seats: slightly less than 60%.  Ergo, either can enjoy complete tyranny with the support of only 60% of the undecided electorate.



Yes, indeed and thanks for that correction. I did double count 30 seats.  :-[

Getting 60% of the seats is still a struggle - that's like the majority party earning 185 seats in the next general election. That's equal to Chretien's victory in 1993 which was, rightfully, called a landslide. Of course it is nothing compared to Mulroney in 84 (74% of the seats) and Diefenbaker in 1958 (78% of the seats).


----------



## JBG (18 Mar 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> Herculean struggle?  Look at it this way: if the "irreducible core" is 30 seats (i.e., guaranteed minimum) either of the major parties would only need an additional 125 of 210 "available" seats: slightly less than 60%.  Ergo, either can enjoy complete tyranny with the support of only 60% of the undecided electorate.


That analysis depends on how the electorate is divided. If the Bloc, NDP and Liberals split the remaining vote equally it is theoretically possible for a CPC candidate to win a Quebec riding with 26% of the vote. I know, of course, that those exact numbers are unlikely, but they of course illustrate an extreme form of the effect of vote-splitting.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 May 2008)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/05/16/5588931-cp.html

No charges to be laid in Cadman affair

By Jim Bronskill, THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA - The RCMP say no charges will be laid in the Chuck Cadman affair, but the mysterious political story appears to have yet more chapters. 

The federal Liberals, who originally complained to the Mounties, said Friday the Conservative government still has a duty to give Canadians details of the episode. 
Tory MP James Moore, however, pronounced the case closed, calling the Liberals reckless in their false accusations. "We have said from the beginning that nothing improper happened here." 

The Mounties were looking into politically explosive allegations that the Tories offered Cadman a life insurance policy in exchange for his support on a key vote in Parliament in 2005. 
Cadman, an Independent MP, was dying of cancer at the time. 
His widow Dona and daughter Jodi have both said Cadman described being offered a $1-million life insurance policy.  
  
The Conservatives acknowledge that two of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's close confidants, Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan, met with Cadman, but say they only offered a repayable loan for his local riding association to cover campaign expenses if he rejoined the Tories. 
Harper told Dona Cadman he did not know of any insurance offer. 
He said in a taped interview with Cadman biographer Tom Zytaruk in September 2005 that there was an offer "only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election." 
Harper has not publicly explained the financial considerations. 

Cadman ultimately sided with the Liberals in a House of Commons confidence vote and kept then-prime minister Paul Martin in office for a few more months. 
Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc released a letter Friday from the RCMP saying the police force had wrapped up its probe and, in consultation with the office of the Ontario attorney general, determined the "investigation disclosed no evidence to support a charge under the Criminal Code or under the Parliament of Canada Act." 

LeBlanc said in a statement that while he fully accepts the RCMP's finding, he believes Harper and the Conservatives must disclose details of the offer to Cadman. 
"Canadians deserve answers to those questions," he said. "We will continue to press for them." 
LeBlanc said the ethical standards of a prime minister must be higher than "those of the evidentiary rules for prosecution under the Criminal Code." 

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion echoed LeBlanc's call for Harper to elaborate. 
"It's his voice that we hear on the tape," Dion said. "He's speaking about financial considerations for Mr. Cadman. He never explained what that meant, and it's time for him to explain it." 
Harper has filed a lawsuit against the Liberals, claiming he was libelled in postings on the party's website. 

Moore said Friday the party would be held accountable. 
"The Liberals have made fabricated accusations. Very soon Liberals will see how big of a legal problem they have created for themselves." 
Zytaruk said the RCMP contacted him during its investigation. "Being a journalist, I didn't give them a statement. But I wouldn't have had anything of material to offer them anyway." 

Neither Dona nor Jodi Cadman were available for comment. Both have said they were interviewed by the Mounties.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2008)

Uh oh...........

http://stevejanke.com/archives/265863.php



> *The tape that wasn't there*
> 
> The Chuck Cadman story takes another strange turn.  The question of whether the Conservatives offered some sort of bribe to Chuck Cadman in 2005 to rejoin the Conservatives and bring down Paul Martin's government has already been put to rest with the RCMP reporting "no evidence" to support such an allegation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jul 2008)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080710/cadman_tape_080710/20080710?hub=Politics
  
Harper lawyers want Cadman author to testify
Updated Thu. Jul. 10 2008 5:51 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper's legal team plans to ask a judge to summon B.C. author Tom Zytaruk to Ottawa to testify in Harper's defamation suit against the Liberal party over bribery allegations in the Chuck Cadman affair. 
The Vancouver lawyer for Zytaruk and a Toronto lawyer representing the Liberal party confirmed Thursday that Harper's lawyer has signalled he wants Zytaruk to appear personally to attest to the authenticity of a recorded interview of Harper that is at the centre of the lawsuit. 

If the motion compelling Zytaruk to appear succeeds, he would testify in September, when the first hearing in the $3.5-million lawsuit has been scheduled. 
In the audio recording of Zytaruk's 2005 interview with Harper, then opposition leader, Harper is heard saying he was aware Conservative party organizers spoke to the late MP Cadman about "financial considerations" before a Commons vote earlier that year that could have led to a snap election. 

Cadman, a former Conservative who was an Independent MP at the time and had terminal cancer, supported the Liberal government in the confidence vote to prevent the election. 
Harper tells Zytaruk in the recording it was his understanding the organizers, Harper's top political operative Doug Finley and campaign director Tom Flanagan, approached Cadman with an offer only to replace financial considerations he might lose "due to an election." 

Zytaruk wrote in a biography of Cadman, who subsequently died, that his widow Dona said the Conservatives had offered Cadman a $1-million insurance policy if he helped to defeat the Liberals and force an election the Conservatives were expecting to win because of controversy over the Liberal sponsorship scandal. 
Harper launched his lawsuit following turmoil over the allegations last year, and last month added a further $1 million in damages for "misappropriation of personality" on grounds Zytaruk's tape had been doctored to distort what Harper said to the author. 
It is the integrity and authenticity of that tape that could be at the centre of arguments when the first hearings in the lawsuit take place Sept. 22-23, said Chris Paliare, the Liberal party's lawyer. 

"That's my understanding," Paliare said, adding he understands Harper's lawyer, Richard Dearden, plans to file motions within a week asking an Ontario Superior Court judge to order a summons compelling Zytaruk to appear. 
Personal testimony in a libel suit would be unusual, even more so if the witness is from another province, Paliare and Zytaruk's counsel, Vancouver lawyer Barry Gibson, both told The Canadian Press. 

Gibson confirmed Zytaruk is aware of the possibility, and also confirmed Zytaruk has refused to furnish Dearden with an original copy of the recording for verification by audio and computer experts. 
"For obvious reasons, Mr. Zytaruk doesn't want to give up the originals, especially to Dearden," Gibson said in an interview. 
Though it has been unable to obtain an original copy of the tape, the Conservative party has nonetheless had experts examine a copy Zytaruk provided and says the experts determined the original recording had been altered. 

Dearden is also expected to file an earlier motion in a British Columbia court to seek a hearing in B.C., where Zytaruk would also appear with his original recording of Harper to initially verify the recording is authentic and prepare the ground for the Ottawa hearing. 
The hearing has been scheduled to hear Harper's application for a court injunction preventing the Liberal party from using the recording, which the Liberals say in their statement of defence was widely available on the Internet when they downloaded it. 

Dearden said he could not comment on the case, and had been instructed to refer journalists to the prime minister's communications office.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, in the obituary of Jean Pelletier:
Part 1 of 2
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090110.wpelltier0110/BNStory/National/home

 Jean Pelletier, 73

SANDRA MARTIN

Globe and Mail Update
January 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM EST

QUEBEC — Loyalty ran like blood between Jean Chrétien and Jean Pelletier from the days when they slept side by side in the dormitory of a Catholic boarding school in Trois-Rivières, Que. For decades their careers took different routes, years in which Mr. Pelletier was Mayor of Quebec City and active in national and international mayoralty associations; but, in 1991, when Mr. Chrétien was floundering as the newly-elected Leader of the Opposition, he turned to his old friend and recruited him as his chief of staff.

Eloquently bilingual, tall, slim with silver hair and a courtly Charles Boyer formality, Mr. Pelletier had a reputation as “terrifying” and the “velvet executioner” because of his tough, but discreet administrative style. He ran Mr. Chrétien's office from 1991 to 2001, through the recession of the early 1990s, the perilously close Quebec referendum in 1995 and three majority governments. Two qualities distinguish his tenure as chief of staff to the prime minister: longevity and lack of controversy and scandal. But he also inspired enormous affection, respect and loyalty from MPs and the hard-nosed team of advisers he worked with in the PMO.

“His role was critical to the success of the Chrétien administration. ...When he left his post, he had established a reputation as having been one of the best chiefs of staff any Canadian prime minister ever had,” Eddie Goldenberg, Mr. Chrétien's long time senior policy adviser, wrote in The Way it Works: Inside Ottawa. “He let you do your work, he gave you your head, but he made sure the trains ran on time. Everybody who worked in the PMO has only the highest regard and respect for him and consider him to be the pater familias of the family,” he said later in an interview.

“He was not a simple person; he was by no means a pushover,” said Chaviva Hosek, Mr. Chrétien's director of policy and research and now CEO of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. “It is the essence of the job [as chief of Staff] that sometimes you have to say no to people. It goes with the territory,” she said.

He ran a very effective shop, very orderly, very well structured, but he also presided over an office which was a very collegial place, said Peter Donolo former director of communications for Mr. Chrétien and now a partner in The Strategic Counsel. “A lot of political staffers, their only authority is the reflected authority they have from their bosses, but he actually brought something to Mr. Chrétien. When he spoke on the PM's behalf to Ministers and others, he had a real authority.”

And then, after Paul Martin succeeded Mr. Chrétien as Liberal prime minister in 2003, everything went sour for Mr. Pelletier. He was fired as chair of Via Rail for seemingly intemperate remarks he made about Olympic gold medalist Myriam Bédard and then he was implicated by Mr. Justice John Gomery in his inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

In _Hell or High Water: My Life In and Out of Politics_, Mr. Martin argued that Mr. Pelletier “should not have commented on the personal life of an employee” and furthermore his remarks were “entirely inappropriate and a direct challenge to my whistleblower policy.” He justified his action by saying, “To leave Pelletier in place in the circumstances would have undermined our commitment to public servants that they should come forward without fear if they had allegations or concerns.”

“He was very hurt about being fired for saying something about Myriam Bédard without being asked for his side,” said Mr. Goldenberg. “The whole purpose [of firing him] had nothing to do with Ms. Bédard and everything to do with the fact that Mr. Martin didn't like him because he had worked for Mr. Chrétien.”

As for the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Pelletier, “a man whose integrity had never been questioned,” found the Gomery Commission “very difficult in a personal sense because he knew he had done nothing wrong,” according to Mr. Goldenberg. “I don't think, Mr. Gomery understood, or wanted to understand how the system actually works in Ottawa. Mr. Pelletier met with Mr. Guité [the federal civil servant in Public Works in charge of the sponsorship program], but he didn't say to him why don't you pay people for work they didn't do. The PMO doesn't work that way.”

Mr. Pelletier was devastated. “The minute you are suspected of being a possible thief, people cross the street to avoid you. I saw people avoid me. Still today there are people convinced that I filled my pockets and I have bank accounts all over the world. I can tell you I didn't take a bloody cent,” he told a reporter for the CPAC network just before the Quebec election on March 26, 2007.

He fought back, winning damages that November from the government for the “cavalier and precipitous” way in which he had been fired from the VIA board. Seven months later, in June, 2008, Judge Max Teitlebaum of the Federal Court ruled that Mr. Gomery had shown “bias” against both Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Chrétien and declared “void” all sections of his report dealing with the former prime minister and his chief of staff. He also ordered the government to pay their legal costs. Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper's government is appealing that decision.

After an exemplary public service career and recognition as an officer in both the Order of Canada and France's Legion of Honour, vindication was cool solace for a man as proud as Mr. Pelletier. As a Liberal insider said: “From Mr. Chrétien on down, the anger and bitterness that we feel toward Mr. Martin has more to do with his treatment of Mr. Pelletier than anything else, anything else. A lot of other stuff we could forgive as part of the course of politics, Mr. Martin's ambition, the bitterness of his feelings toward Mr. Chrétien and the deterioration of their relationship, but on the whole issue of his treatment of Mr. Pelletier, has left a bitter taste. This was revenge, kicking him on the way out the door.”

Mr. Pelletier was born in Chicoutimi, Quebec on Feb 21, 1935, the son of Burroughs and Marie (Desautels) Pelletier. He was educated at the College des Jesuits in Quebec City and the Séminaire de Trois-Rivières. He met Jean Chrétien, who is a year older, when he was about 15 and they were both boarding at the Catholic school in Trois-Rivières. They slept in adjacent and extra long beds in the dormitory because they were both tall for their ages.

“We both came from different colleges, I guess we had been a bit too lively, and I had quit Joliette to go to Trois Rivières and he had quit Quebec... and we spent a year together and we became very good friends,” Mr. Chrétien said in an interview. The two young men met up again at Laval University in the mid 1950s. Mr. Pelletier took social sciences and began working as a journalist with CFCM-TV in Quebec City in 1957. He later served as a press secretary for Paul Sauvé when he was Premier of Quebec. On June 3, 1961, he married Hélène Bherer. The couple eventually had two children.

Mr. Pelletier became involved in municipal politics as one of the founders of Quebec's Parti du Progrès civique in 1962. In 1964, he became a securities dealer with Lévesque and Beaubien Ltd and six years later was vice-president of Dumont Express. From 1973 until 1977, he was director and vice-president of Action Sociale Ltée. He was elected as a municipal councillor in Quebec City in December 1976 and mayor the following year, a position he held for a dozen years and two more elections. During his tenure as mayor, from 1977-1989, he improved rail service into the city, was instrumental in reviving the Lower Town and in having it designated a UNESCO World Heritage site.

In June, 1990, Mr. Chrétien finally became leader of the Liberal Party after defeating Paul Martin at the convention following the resignation of John Turner. The victory tasted more like ashes than honey. Castigated in the Quebec media for his opposition to Meech Lake, buffeted by the defection from the Caucus of francophone MPs (and Paul Martin loyalists) Jean Lapierre and Gilles Rocheleau, he seemed indecisive in the stand-off between the Mohawk Nation's barricade, the Sûreté du Québec and the town of Oka. Politically, he was sidelined because he didn't have a seat in the House of Commons – it wasn't until December, 1990 that he ran successfully in a by-election in the New Brunswick constituency of Beauséjour and was able to take his place in the Commons as Leader of the Official Opposition.

Hampered by the federal party's disorganization, near bankruptcy and drop in the polls from 50 to 32 per cent, and his own awkwardness in using a teleprompter rather than his extemporaneous “le petit gars de Shawinigan” speaking style, Mr. Chrétien was doubting himself as leader. Besides everything else, he was lacking energy. A check-up found two nodules on his lung. After surgery, they were found to be benign, and Mr. Chrétien, the eternal joker, delighted in referring to the snipped nodules as Lapierre and Rocheleau–in reference to the francophone MPs who had quit the caucus when he became leader.

While recuperating in Florida that February, he discussed his leadership problems with his wife Aline, who advised him to stop seeking so much advice and to be himself. That's when he decided to recruit Mr. Pelletier as his chief of staff. “I boxed him into accepting,” he admits in _Straight From the Heart_. “Some years ago,” I said, “you told me that if I ever needed you, you'd be with me. Well, now I need your help. But I know that you will be like everyone else. I know I'm still not very popular. I know it wouldn't be fashionable for you to work with me. So I expect that you will say not.”

But, of course, Mr. Pelletier said yes. “... he is a man of his word, with a strong sense of public duty. He came, and he soon brought order to my office,” wrote Mr. Chrétien, in what one insider called an “act of loyalty given the way Mr. Chrétien was portrayed at the time in Quebec.” Besides Mr. Pelletier as chief of staff, Eddie Goldenberg continued as senior political adviser (although at the time he was said to have been angry and upset that the appointment had taken him by surprise). Chavia Hosek, a former Ontario cabinet minister, was already in place as director of the Liberal Research Bureau and senior policy adviser, as was Peter Donolo as director of communications.

< End of Part 1>


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2009)

Jean Pelletier: Part 2 of 2

Mr. Pelletier arrived the day after Canada Day, 1991. “I decided to meet every employee in camera,” he told Edward Greenspon and Anthony Wilson-Smith for their book _Double Vision: The Inside Story of the Liberals in Power_. “After two weeks I knew what was wrong.” Essentially he imposed order on chaos, beginning with a meeting with senior staff at 8:45 every morning in his office on the second floor of the Langevin Block and a meeting 45 minutes later with the prime minister and the clerk of the Privy Council, although he often talked with Mr. Chrétien more than that. He made organizational flow charts, insisted that matters for the PM were filed in red folders and issues related to Quebec in blue ones. He believed that Mr. Chrétien needed “order, control and stability around him” if he were to deliver a peak performance.

“He had a lot of personal authority,” said Mr. Chrétien. “He never raised his voice, but he inspired a lot of respect. There was no shouting around Mr. Pelletier. It was always extremely civilized, always very candid and straightforward and he never looked for publicity for himself.”

For more than two years in Opposition – years of incessant Constitutional wrangling including the negotiation and defeat of both the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords – Mr. Pelletier was the behind the scenes fixer. For example, when Pierre Trudeau, Mr. Chrétien's political hero and mentor, was preparing his denunciation of Charlottetown at the Maison Egg Roll in Montreal on Oct. 1, 1992, it was Mr. Pelletier who urged Mr. Chrétien to meet secretly with his predecessor at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto where the two men argued about the meaning of “distinct society” for more than two hours. They didn't resolve their differences, but Mr. Trudeau did promise to “refrain from undermining my authority in public,” according to Mr. Chrétien's memoirs.

In the 1993 federal election Mr. Pelletier ran for the Liberal Party in Quebec City, his mayoral stronghold, “out of loyalty,” Mr. Chrétien said. “He knew it was going to be very difficult, but we had to build back the party.” The campaign didn't go well and Mr. Pelletier predicted – correctly – that he would lose to the Bloc Québècois candidate. Although Mr. Chrétien initially dismissed his friend's pessimism, he finally arranged, if the worst came to the worst, to meet him at the airport in Trois-Rivières the morning after the election.

“He would have been a very senior cabinet minister,” Mr. Chrétien said. “He was a man of great experience and a well travelled, well-read person.” The day after the election, Mr. Chrétien, who won a massive majority –177 seats –but failed to deliver his native province, sought out Mr. Pelletier on the tarmac and asked him to return as chief of staff. “Your loss is my gain,” he told his old friend.

For the next eight years, Mr. Pelletier ran the PMO, through the enactment and implementation of NAFTA, the recession of the early 1990s, the second Quebec referendum, the Clarity Act, two more landslide Liberal election victories and the growing rivalry between Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin, his minister of finance and impatient heir apparent.

“Beneath his patrician manner and warm smile, Pelletier was extremely disciplined, well organized, and as hard as nails,” Mr. Chrétien wrote in _My Years as Prime Minister_. “He ran a very tight–and tight-lipped–ship.... As a result, we didn't suffer from the public feuding, backbiting gossip, and anonymous leaks that had plagued other PMOs. Even those columnists and academics who were no fans of the Liberal Party had to concede that Pelletier's operation was among the most efficient and harmonious in memory, despite having been reduced from 120 to 80 employees as a cost-saving measure.”

Jeffrey Simpson, national columnist for The Globe, agreed with that description: “Pelletier stayed away from the media. He seldom met with journalists, and when he did, he gave almost nothing away. He was courteous, refined, sometimes witty and usually non-informative.” Or as Peter Donolo pointed out, Mr. Pelletier had already had his fill of the public stuff, as the high-powered mayor of Quebec, so he didn't need the ego boost. Instead of letting political staffers “swan” about in the media he liked to say: “we don't cook in the living room.”

Besides his administrative skills, his stature in Quebec, his Canadian network from his years both as a member and president of the federation of Canadian Municipalities, he also had sterling international connections. As mayor of Quebec City he had met and become friends with Jacques Chirac when he was Mayor of Paris (1977{minus}1995), a link that was strengthened by working together during the decade that Mr. Pelletier also served as vice-president of the Association of Francophone Mayors (1979-89). For example, it was Mr. Pelletier who persuaded Mr. Chirac to keep mum publicly during the 1980 Quebec referendum. even though, like General de Gaulle before him, Mr. Chirac had a distinct empathy for an independent Quebec.

Mr. Chrétien charged Mr. Pelletier with converting Mr. Chirac from a Séparatiste into a federalist – and persuading him to say so publicly. Mr. Pelletier made secret visits to France twice a year to meet with Mr. Chirac, or “to water my plants” as he liked to describe these trips and he convinced a reluctant Mr. Chrétien to meet Mr. Chirac at the Paris city hall in June 1994, despite the prime minister's disdain for consorting with a man he considered a “right-wing Gaullist,” and about whom he had said publicly, “There's no more chance of him winning the presidential election than of the separatists winning the referendum.” He was certainly wrong on the first prediction–Mr. Chirac was elected president of France, succeeding Francois Mitterand in May, 1995 – and perilously close to losing the second one.

Mr. Pelletier's quiet diplomacy crashed into a shoal, a week before the Referendum in October, 1995 when Mr. Chirac said on the Larry King show on CNN that if the Quebec referendum supported separation, France should be one of the first countries to recognize the new state. Mr. Chrétien was furious and had it out with Mr. Chirac at the Francophonie summit in Benin a few weeks later, much to the discomfort of his chief of staff. (By then the referendum, which took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, had decided against separation by a razor-thin margin: 50.58 per cent “No” to 49.42 per cent “Yes”.)

The blow-up between Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Chirac was actually the beginning of a deep friendship between the two leaders. Mr. Chirac held a state dinner in Paris in Mr. Chrétien's honour as the prime minister was stepping down from public office in 2003, a dinner at which Mr. Chirac referred to him as “mon cher Jean” and stated that relations between the two countries (both of whom had opposed sending troops to Iraq as part of the U.S. led coalition of the willing that spring) had never been better. It was a public compliment to Mr. Pelletier's discreet diplomatic skills as well. In Hell or High Water, Mr. Martin reports that at his first meeting as Prime Minister with Mr. Chirac, the French President rebuked him for his treatment of Mr. Pelletier. “I told Chirac that I appreciated their relationship but that I was prime minister of Canada and would make my own decisions.”

Mr. Pelletier was a peace maker at home as well as abroad. For example, he and Mr. Goldenberg met weekly with senior members of Daniel Johnson's staff in a vain attempt to help the Quebec Premier win the 1994 provincial election. When Mr. Chrétien was thinking of appointing Romeo Leblanc, a former Cabinet Minister and Speaker of the House, Governor-General in the mid-1990s, he asked Mr. Pelletier to deliver the message that Mr. Leblanc should marry his long time companion, Diana Fowler, if he wished to be considered. He did and he was, in Jan. 1995, becoming the first Governor General of Acadian descent. When Adrienne Clarkson's name was being bruited about as Mr. Leblanc's successor in 1999, she “casually let [Mr.]Pelletier know that she had recently married [her partner] John Ralston Saul,” according to Mr. Chrétien in My Years as Prime Minister.

About the time Mr. Pelletier turned 65 in February, 2000, he told his boss that he wanted to retire. Mr. Chrétien persuaded him to stay on for a few more months to see him through the Summit of the Americas, scheduled for Quebec City in April 2001. Mr. Pelletier complied. A grateful Mr. Chrétien paid tribute to Mr. Pelletier, as the man “who has never let me down,” when his chief of staff finally departed the PMO on May 4, 2001. “I believe his performance has set the standard against which senior aides in politics and government will be measured for years to come.” It is certainly true that ten years in the post is a long time compared to the survival rate of subsequent chiefs of staff.

As a parting gift, Mr. Chrétien made Mr. Pelletier chair of VIA Rail in September 2001. It was not an unlikely patronage appointment. As mayor of Quebec City, Mr. Pelletier had improved passenger rail service into the city and he had served on a Quebec-Ontario committee investigating a high speed rail link between Windsor and Quebec City in 1990 – a project he revived and tried hard to push forward after he was appointed as chair of the Via board. But, early in 2004, Mr. Martin, who had succeeded Mr. Chrétien as leader of the party and as prime minister four months earlier, fired Mr. Pelletier in what Mr. Chrétien would later call “an act of petty political revenge.” There were two precipitating incidents, but both involved the sponsorship scandal.

Nobody completely understands the connection between stress and illness, but many believe that the combined effect of VIA and the Gomery Inquiry precipitated Mr. Pelletier's wife's severe complications from diabetes and his own diagnosis of colon cancer. Late last spring he stopped chemotherapy because it was making him ill while doing little to stop the progress of the disease.

Fearing the end was near, Mr. Chrétien and about 15 of his former staffers, including Mr. Goldberg, Ms. Hosek and Mr. Donolo moved a planned reunion dinner (to commemorate the 15th anniversary of Mr. Chrétien's election as prime minister in 1993) from Ottawa to the Quebec Garrison Club on Nov. 15, 2008 so it would be easier for a frail-looking Mr. Pelletier to attend. Instead of a celebration, the evening had an elegiac mood.

On New Year's Eve, 2008, he was admitted to Saint-Sacrement Hospital in Quebec City and later transferred to the Maison Michel-Sarrazin hospice, where he spoke on the phone and was visited by a number of old friends including Quebec City Mayor Regis Labeaume and Mr. Chrétien. “He is a very brave man, very courageous and he is facing death with the serenity of a man who has done his job while he was a citizen,” said Mr. Chrétien. “And I said that to him: ‘You can be proud of yourself.'”

Jean Pelletier, O.C. was born in Chicoutimi, Quebec on Feb 21, 1935. He died of complications from colon cancer in hospital in Quebec City early in the morning on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2009. He was 73. Mr. Pelletier is survived by his wife Hélène, his two children Jean and Marie and his extended family.
--------------------

RIP, Monsieur.


----------



## Dog Walker (7 Feb 2009)

Harper drops Cadman defamation suit against Liberals
Updated Fri. Feb. 6 2009 10:10 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has abruptly dropped his $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party over the Cadman affair. 
A 51-word news release said Harper and the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada have settled all issues related to the lawsuit. 
The suit has been dismissed without costs awarded to either side. 
"The parties are pleased to put the matter behind them and will make no further comment," the terse statement said. 
Sources have told CTV News that Harper "was going to lose" and thus, dropped the suit.
Harper launched the lawsuit last March after the Liberal party alleged that Harper and the Conservatives tried to bribe Chuck Cadman, the late independent MP, into helping them defeat the minority Liberal government in 2005 by offering the cancer-stricken MP a $1-million life insurance plan. 
The allegations came from a biography on Cadman, written by Tom Zytaruk, which said two Tory officials made the offer. 
Zytaruk produced an audio tape of an interview with Harper, in which the prime minister said he was aware there was an offer "replace financial considerations that (Cadman) might lose due to an election." 
The prime minister said the tape was doctored and sought an injunction to prevent the Liberals from using the tape. The injunction has been dropped along with the lawsuit. 
With files from The Canadian Press 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090206/cadman_suit_090206/20090206?hub=TopStories


----------



## geo (7 Feb 2009)

Heard the tape last night... sure does sound like the real deal - that he DID know.


----------



## GAP (7 Feb 2009)

Iggy is busy clearing the decks for the future....

no matter which way this suit was going to go, the Libs couldn't afford it......there's a tit for tat somewhere in the woodpile....


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Feb 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> Iggy is busy clearing the decks for the future....
> 
> no matter which way this suit was going to go, the Libs couldn't afford it......there's a tit for tat somewhere in the woodpile....



One might argue that the original accusation was in retaliation for the Sponsorship scandal. The Libs were eager to find something to embarrass the Torries with. They didn't count on the level of response (ie: brought a knife to a gun fight).


----------



## geo (7 Feb 2009)

From my perspective....
The Conservatives did something wrong
when the subject came up, at just about new election time, the Libs tried to bring it out
the Conservatives filed the law suit, which pert much put a gag order on the darned thing - pending a trial date
NOW, it's old news, lots of water under the bridge, the Conservatives aren't as bothered about it as they were - trying to get into power.... so they drop the suit.... 
Even if the Libs bring up the subject once again, it's old news.... once upon a time, a long long time ago....


----------



## Dog Walker (10 Feb 2009)

Some more details.

Harper dropped lawsuit ahead of key hearing
Updated Tue. Feb. 10 2009 7:19 AM ET
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper dropped his lawsuit against the Liberals in the Cadman affair just weeks before a hearing on whether his emails, notes and agenda could be called into evidence. 
A court date was to be scheduled this month over the failure of the prime minister's legal team to provide documents and answers to questions that had been requested during a series of cross-examinations last summer. 
The lawyer for the Liberal party was set to ask the court to rule whether Harper would have to provide emails and notes for meetings his staff held related to Chuck Cadman. 
The matter involves allegations that the Conservatives offered a financial inducement to Cadman, an Independent MP, while trying to defeat the minority Liberal government in 2005. The Tories deny the charge. 
The prime minister dropped his $3.5-million defamation lawsuit on Friday after reaching a deal with the Liberals. 
Sources say the Liberal party is not obligated to pay any damages or apologize for claims on its website that Harper was aware Tory officials offered Cadman - who was dying - a $1-million insurance policy if he sided with them in a Commons budget vote. 
Despite the refusal of either side to comment about their agreement to dismiss the case, records show a legal fight was brewing over the documents and other information Liberal lawyer Chris Paliare had requested. 
Hearings were expected to begin this month over Harper's failure to have his lawyers respond to Paliare's request for documents and information from the prime minister's office. 
In a series of cross-examinations last summer, Paliare requested copies of Harper's agenda for the day he was interviewed by B.C. journalist Tom Zytaruk, who reported the life-insurance allegations in a biography of Cadman. 
Paliare had also asked for copies of Cadman's journals and diaries for the period of time during which the financial inducement allegedly took place. 
Harper lawyer Richard Dearden abruptly quit last November, to be replaced by Toronto lawyer David Wingfield, after the initial stages of the Liberal efforts to obtain the documents and information began. 
Dearden gave no explanation for his departure, and court notices of the lawyer swap do not indicate whether it was at Harper's wish or Dearden's. 
During the examination of Harper last August, Dearden objected to Paliare's request for an email said to discuss a meeting between Cadman and two Conservatives the day of the confidence vote in 2005. 
Other documents Paliare requested during his cross-examination of Harper included the notes of "all the people" who attended meetings in the prime minister's office in late February when the allegations were first reported. 
Harper's lawsuit prevented the Liberals from exploiting the allegations during the federal election last fall. 
Tom Conway, a prominent Ottawa lawyer who represented a former Tory member who sued Harper, said the looming court fight over access to emails and notes may have been behind Harper's decision to abandon the lawsuit. 
"People drop lawsuits for all sorts of reason and sometimes they drop lawsuits because they are being asked to produce information they don't want to produce," said Conway, a member of the board of the Law Society of Upper Canada. 
The NDP is calling on both parties to disclose the terms of their deal. 
"Now it just sort of disappears from the radar because of this closed-door agreement?" said Vancouver MP Bill Siksay. "I don't think that's acceptable." 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090210/harper_suit_090210/20090210?hub=QPeriod


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2009)

Several possible options. Take your pick:

http://www.mikebrockonline.com/blog/2009/02/that-defamation-suit.html



> *That Defamation Suit*
> By
> Mike Brock
> 
> ...


----------



## Dog Walker (13 Feb 2009)

Cadman biographer threatens to sue Conservatives
Updated Fri. Feb. 13 2009 4:08 PM ET
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Chuck Cadman's biographer says he might sue the Conservative government for smearing his reputation. 
But facing a Tory party with deep pockets, Tom Zytaruk says he would first need a lawyer willing to work for free before seeking reputational damages. 
He says he's fed up with watching the Conservatives spread lies about him - and taking for granted that he can't afford a legal fight. 
At issue is an interview Zytaruk taped with Stephen Harper several months before Harper became prime minister. 
On that tape Harper was overheard discussing a financial offer made to Cadman, the late B.C. MP, in exchange for his support in a crucial parliamentary vote. 
The Conservatives have repeatedly claimed that the tape was doctored, even after one of their own experts concluded that the relevant portions were not. 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090213/cadman_suit_090213/20090213?hub=TopStories


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2009)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Cadman biographer threatens to sue Conservatives
> Updated Fri. Feb. 13 2009 4:08 PM ET
> The Canadian Press
> OTTAWA -- Chuck Cadman's biographer says he might sue the Conservative government for smearing his reputation.
> ...



......and after more than one  expert said it _*had*_ been doctored


----------

