The Conservative Scandal Sheet: Split from: Stéphane Dion Wins Lib. Leadership

[zipperhead_cop]

According to you, you have an exam in an hour and a half.  Is this stuff on the exam? 

 

[hotelquebec9er]

No, I am taking an Arabic exam.  Decided to learn a language to increase my job opps.

 

[George Wallace]

I find it amusing that you are so sanctimonious in your posts.  Canada finally has a PM who is a Leader, and you denegrate him for keeping his word.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

3.  attracted to or preoccupied with scandal, as a person: a scandalous, vicious gossip.

Funny thing, that third definition  ^-^

 

[scoutfinch]

George:  While I have a great respect for your views, I must confess that I have problems with the current PM.  I don't see him as a leader.  I see him as a bully.  I guess it is all about perspective.

 

[hotelquebec9er]

I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.

+1 on the bullyage.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.

Oh, the glistening irony.  :clown:

Who was it that once said "everyone demands decisive leadership from their government until they get it" ?

 

[hotelquebec9er]

I'm happy with waffles...

If it is any consolation, I dislike Martin just as much as Harper. :rage:

 

[Roy Harding]

...

These actions, and the actions of the PMO office, lead me to feel we have truly elected a one man show.  I do not like this. According to the dictionary, this is scandalous.

Steady, Son.

You have engaged in debate with some VERY knowledgeable people - these folks are NOT your usual University Professors (although some are, indeed, professors - a few have PhD's).

You have been called on your statements, and THIS is the best you can come up with?

Regarding your Dictionary definition - you (or more properly, the dictionary you quoted) are correct in that definition.  HOWEVER, what you started this thread with was allegations that the CPC had been involved in "scandals" as popularized in the popular press, which USUALLY, but not always, imply a legal impropriety of some sort.

You then "didn't feel like" backing up your allegations, although you do "feel" that the PMO is a "one man show", and you "don't like this".  Hell, you might even be right about the PMO, I certainly don't know - and YOU have failed to give me any FACTS which support your "feeling".

Cry me a river.

 

[Danjanou]

I apologize. When I spell check Cretien, that's what it gives me.

Funny mine does that too 8)

No, I am taking an Arabic exam.  Decided to learn a language to increase my job opps.

Anything we can do to help?
 
Maybe get you another

or a

 

[Franko]

I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.

So the Prime Minister(the position) isn't a leader then?

Is he/she supposed to cower in the corner evertime there is a decision to be made?

So what do you want to do....have a Wheel of Fortune in the center of the House of Commons to decide such matters?

Give 'er a spin when there is a decision to be made?

* Big money....big money....no whammies...no whammies.... STOP! *

Suggest you do a stop drop until after the new year....and grow a thicker skin, before it's a bit too late.


Regards

 

[vonGarvin]

- I find the Conservative re-opening of the same-sex marriage debate to be scandalous.  Shamefully giving the constitution and the charter of rights the finger. 
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/dion-samesex.html

If you think having a debate on something is scandalous, then you ought to be ashamed of yourself.  Harper made a promise during the campaign, he kept it. Hell, even the CPC candidates weren't whipped on this (unlike certain "democratic" parties)

- Falling back to the reverse-onus clause, which has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (re: handguns and bail conditions). Again shamefully giving the constitution and the charter of rights the finger. 
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/11/23/harper-gun.html 

From your very quote: "...adding that current law already allows for reverse onus for some crimes including drug trafficking and organized crime."  This may or may not prove to be unconstitutional.

- Moving to remove the wheat board ability to be a one desk seller, when the recent election of Wheat Board governers favour maintaining the status quo five to one (8/10 board members).  Those board members were elected by the farmers with vested interest.  For a party that so vehemently supports grassroots democracy and democratic action, this makes no sense.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2006/07/27/wheat-board.html

Again, from your source:  "On the agenda is a discussion of ways to end the wheat board's monopoly over the export sale of wheat and barley — something the Conservatives said they favoured during the election campaign."  If you think that living up to a campaign promise is scandalous, well, it almost is...in this country.

- The Quebec Nation debate:  His intergovernmental affairs minister was not kept abreast of the situation, and resigned over this issue.  He whipped a vote that could have long term impact on the sustainability of the confederation.  This is in direct contravention of the "values" that Stephen Harper was so vehement in espousing during the election campaign about free votes to be held in parliament.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/061127/n112775A.html

Well, as a minister, this statement, from your source, speaks volumes about this guy's effectiveness: "A review of Hansard indicates he took only one question on intergovernmental affairs during the first six months the Conservatives were in office."

- Without any substantive proof, removing Garth Turner from caucus.  Then moving to prevent him from running in Halton, even though his local riding association re-affirmed his candidacy even after his removal.  Real grassroots there.
http://www.garth.ca/news/suspension-letters-garth.pdf

I don't know about you, but having a member of your caucus removed for not toeing the line is nothing new.  See the NDP and the initial vote on the so-called Same-sex marriage and the NDP member who was forced out by Herr Layton. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/09/05/ndpsamesex030905.html
"The leader of the federal New Democrats says his MPs won't be allowed a free vote on same-sex marriage."  Now THAT'S leadership in a democracy!

These actions, and the actions of the PMO office, lead me to feel we have truly elected a one man show.  I do not like this. According to the dictionary, this is scandalous.

The part you say above that I put in bold is your opinion.  I don't agree with it, but both your opinion and my hold the same water, so fair enough.  I don't agree, however, that what you've outlined is scandalous.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.

+1 on the bullyage.

"I don't want a leader"??....ding ding ding.....now there is the stupidest statement of 2006.

"I want someone who respects the constitution."..........it's a human document, with human frailities, not some omnipotent writings from a higher being. Why do you think its perfect?

"+1 on the bullyage.".......you say bully, some say desisive.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.

+1 on the bullyage.

This constitution that allows Quebec to openly discriminate against anglophones?  That permits the Charter to give criminals freedoms that far surpass any other element of society?  That cements in the judges that shred the fabric of our society for the sake of self aggrandizing arrogance and socialist agenda? 
Yeah, she's a flawless document. 

 

[a_majoor]

Wow, what a pile on. Logic, consistency and facts win the day, as they always do in the end.

If you want to use policies as "scandal" there is plenty to choose from as well; just read any edition of the Liberal "Red Book", for example and notice which promises were made and which ones were implemented. Universal day care was so good it was promised by the Liberals in EVERY election campaign since 1993. The Auditor General has noted over $6 billion was spent by the Liberals on the Kyoto accord without any noticeable reduction in CO2 emissions (indeed there was something like a 25-30% increase). Instead there was no attempt to quantify if this spending was effective, and given some projects include turning forests into charcoal for iron production in Brazil and reactivating old oil fields in Saudi Arabia, no real thought given to what was going on (what was that environment minister's name again....Dion?). I'm sure everyone can point out the vast reduction in gun crimes the long gun registry is responsible for.....

While many of you might question how logic and facts win the day in the "real world", given the fact the Liberals were in power for so long, look at the effects on the Canadian economy (low productivity, wild swings in the value of the $Cdn, unemployment that is always double that of the United States, declining relative incomes compared to our American counterparts, calls for Canada to be replaced on the G8 by Spain, etc.) If the voters don't speak up, Adam Smith will!

 

[a_majoor]

Holy C***, I look at the "Blogging Tories" and this comes up first thing!

http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2006/12/arrests-in-hrdc-fraud.html

Arrests in HRDC Fraud

I always hated the use of the word "boondoggle"... makes us sound really old.

Anyway, did any of you see this in any newscasts? Neither did I... buried online at CTV. Convenient.
Police arrest six more in HRDC boondoggle probe
Updated Wed. Dec. 20 2006 6:36 PM ET
Canadian Press

MISSISSAUGA, Ont. -- Police have made six more arrests in a long-running investigation into the HRDC "boondoggle", and the Conservatives are drawing links between the accused and the Liberals.

The arrests by police in Peel Region, near Toronto, are the latest echo from a scandal that became known as the "billion-dollar boondoggle" when it broke in 2000.

Human Resources Development Canada, a now-defunct federal agency, made grants and contributions to projects designed to provide skills training through local organizations.

In January 2000, an internal audit showed sloppy paperwork and poor accounting in a number of project files. Auditors extrapolated their findings in 460 files to the entire program, suggesting potential problems in the handling of up to $1 billion.

However, later audits found real problems with only a small percentage of projects.

Investigators said Wednesday that they have identified $3 million that was allegedly defrauded by the six accused and their corporations from 1999 to 2004.

The accused are from Toronto, Mississauga and Oakville.

Four of the them -- Harbhinder Bajwa, John Danson, Laura Mikos and Harvinder Rakhra -- are charged with fraud and bribery

The other two -- Phillip Goodman and Peter Rethazy -- are charged with conspiracy to commit fraud.

A police task force previously charged 21 people for similar fraud offences.

The Conservatives issued a news release noting that people with the same names as those charged are listed as past donors to the Liberal party according to Elections Canada.

"Given the Liberal record of scandal, waste and mismanagement, Canadians are wondering about the strange coincidences involved of individuals being charged having the same name as those who were donating to the Liberals," Dimitri Soudas, deputy press secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said in a news release.

The Tories said three of the suspect donations were made to the riding association of Jane Stewart, who was human resources minister in charge of HRDC.

"Canadians may see eerie similarities to the sponsorship scandal -- as a government program is being defrauded by individuals, who could be the very same individuals who were then donating money to the Liberal party and to Liberal riding associations."

At the time of the HRDC scandal, Stewart downplayed the size of the problem, saying poor accounting may have lost track of money, but little or no money actually disappeared.

HRDC was reorganized and renamed Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

Chretien, who strongly defended the minister and the department, called an election in 2000 after the worst of the HRDC scandal had blown out -- and won a third majority.

However, the HRDC scandal was eventually seen, along with the subsequent sponsorship scandal as evidence of, at best, Liberal laxity with public money and, at worst, Liberal tolerance for corruption.
So, now we have a couple of names to work with... let the games begin!
Donations to the Liberal Party of Canada, via Elections Canada

HARVINDER RAKHRA - TOTAL - $1357.10
2000 - Liberal Party of Canada - $534.00
2002 - Liberal Party of Canada - 35103 York West - $433.10
2003 - Liberal Party of Canada - $390.00


LAURA MIKOS (she's the stingy one of the bunch...)
2002 - Liberal Party of Canada - 35007 Brant - $342.40


JOHN DANSON - TOTAL - $4296.02 (he's not so stingy...)
2000 - Liberal Party of Canada - $849.00

2001 - TOTAL - $2468.12
35103 York West - $1000.00
35081 St Paul's - $250.00
35075 SCARBOROUGH - EAST - $250.00
35014 Don Valley West - $250.00
35013 Don Valley East - $500.00
35006 BRAMPTON WEST - MISSISSAUGA - $218.12
(for the record, all six of these are from the same Toronto postal code)

Wow, he really increased his donations from 2000... maybe he had a little extra cash to spread around? One might come to such a conclusion. Now, on to the following years...

2003 - Liberal Party of Canada - $678.90
2004 - Bennett, Carolyn / St. Paul's - $300.00
(NOTE: no accusations towards Ms. Bennett, she likely would have known nothing)
All of them only donated during or shortly after the time frame that money was going missing from the HRDC. Of course, it could be mere coincidence, as our system DOES assume one is innocent until proven guilty.

We (the CPC) put out a press release with some of the same info, but I can't get to the website right now to post the link.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

See, now THAT strikes me as being scandalous.... :

 

[GAP]

.

 

[sober_ruski]

I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.

+1 on the bullyage.

Constitution was already changed once, in 1982, by... oh my, Trudeau's lieberals.

Doesnt sound like they "respected" the one made in 1867.

 

[STONEY]

It would seem that a great many people have short memories.

Let me see , the last Conservative government under Mr.Mulroney won a election with the biggest landslide in Canadian history and despite all this a few years later "Lying Brian's" scandal ridden gov. was tossed out in an election that the Conservatives won only 2 seats, the worst defeat in history.  Nobody remember the Airbus scandal. One of the reasons the Liberals have been in power most of the time is the poor performance of Conseravative Gov's. That being said , and hope springing erternal I am optomistic that Mr. Harper will prove a refreshing change.

Cheers