The Chuck Cadman Merged Thread

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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]

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]

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]

chess master or bully? just kidding... 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

OTTAWA–The Prime Minister's Office has "categorically" denied that any Conservatives offered a dying MP a lucrative life-insurance policy in exchange for his support on the eve of a critical Commons vote.

Stephen Harper's communications director sent The Canadian Press a brief email Wednesday rejecting allegations the party offered Chuck Cadman the million-dollar policy.

"Yes, I categorically deny it," wrote Sandra Buckler.

It was the first time the government explicitly denied the allegation since the story broke last week.

Buckler's reply came after nearly a week of repeated questions to the PMO and a party spokesman about the alleged life-insurance offer.

Wednesday also marked the first time the Tories explicitly said in the House of Commons that no one from the party offered the ailing Cadman life insurance.

"There was, in fact, no life-insurance policy proposal that was made," said Tory MP James Moore.

"There were no discussions about a million-dollar bribe."

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

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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]

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.

Take the recent "debate" over Ralph Goodale's budget. The least that could be said about Conservatives of years past (or the right- of-centre parties that preceded them) is that they could be counted on to mount a strong attack on the Liberals' largesse. And with this year's installment containing a rash of long-term spending commitments, not to mention deceptive back-loading on the few tax cuts served up, there was little reason to expect Stephen Harper's party would disappoint.

But much like the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservatives have spent the past few weeks spinning mixed messages and playing parliamentary games instead of delivering principled criticism.

First, Conservative leader Stephen Harper tried to look statesmanlike by effectively endorsing the budget the day it was delivered. Then, he began offering some tepid criticism. When Conservative MPs complained the party would look weak voting in favour of the budget, it was decided that they would abstain en masse from yesterday's final budget vote.

In the meanwhile, to give the appearance of taking some sort of active role, the party introduced an amendment to the budget criticizing its Kyoto spending and renewed commitment to the gun registry. But then, when it looked as though there might be enough support from the Bloc Quebecois to actually see the amendment passed, the Conservatives panicked, and proceeded -- by all appearances -- to deliberately sabotage their own amendment by ensuring that a chunk of their caucus was absent for the vote.

Confused? Frankly, we had a bit of trouble following these amateurish shenanigans ourselves. But that's the point: To win over skeptical voters, the Conservatives need to be seen providing strong and sustained opposition to misguided Liberal policies, and putting forward intelligent ideas of their own. Instead, they've been caught up in procedural tricks that will strike most Canadians as merely cynical.

Mr. Harper was right to avoid defeating the budget, which almost certainly would have sent the country to a general election that no one -- least of all voters -- wants just nine months after the last one. But that should not have precluded him and his caucus from cataloging the budget's flaws, nor from stating what his party would have done differently.

From the time he first became leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Harper's challenge has been to convince Canadian voters he is a legitimate prime minister-in-waiting. The last two weeks have done little to further that impression.

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


OTTAWA -- The silence spoke volumes Wednesday as the opposition Conservatives, in an unprecedented move, sat mute in the Commons while the Liberal minority government's budget passed its final confidence test.

With the Tories abstaining, Prime Minister Paul Martin's troops easily turned back the combined forces of the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP by a 132-74 margin.

The closest any Conservative came to taking a stand was when when party leader Stephen Harper leaned forward and feigned rising to his feet -- before quickly settling back into his seat with a grin.

The 81 other Tories who turned out never twitched a muscle as they allowed the Commons clerks to skip past them in the roll call.

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale was happy with the result, even if his victory was gained by unorthodox means.

"It's a minority Parliament, so different and unusual things will happen," Goodale said as he emerged from the House.

"They obviously concluded that this budget was sufficiently strong that they did not want to risk their position in an election. That says the budget is popular with Canadians, and that is where the rubber really hits the road."

Harper pledged two weeks ago on budget day that he wouldn't forced a snap election by defeating the government.

He took heat from Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton for the unusual way he chose to prop up the Liberals.

But he insisted it was the responsible thing to do. He also took a shot at Duceppe and Layton, suggesting they could afford to posture on the matter because their combined numbers couldn't bring the Liberals down.

"What's become apparent is that the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP will grandstand on these things (but) it is up to us in the Conservative party to decide whether the time has come to have an election," said Harper.

"In our judgment -- I think in Canadians' judgment -- it is not that time."

Duceppe was unconvinced by the Conservative rationale for abstaining on the budget vote -- the first time in parliamentary history an official Opposition party had done so.

"I just don't understand it," said the Bloc leader.

"We're elected here to express ourselves. If they think it's a good strategy, maybe next campaign they should say: `Vote for us, we won't show up.'"

Layton accused the Conservatives of wanting to have it both ways.

"Why doesn't Mr. Harper have the courage to stand up and simply vote for the budget -- because that's what he's doing in effect," snapped the NDP chief.

Peter MacKay, the deputy Conservative leader, insisted an abstention wasn't the same as a vote in favour.

"It's basically saying, `None of the above.' We don't like the choices, but we're not going to make this government fall."

MacKay pictured his party as responding to a "higher calling" by averting an election that wouldn't be in the national interest.

Others admitted, however, that partisan considerations were also at play. Opinion polls show the Conservatives languishing below 30 per cent.

Nor has any other party dramatically improved its standing since last June's election. Even the first-place Liberals are barely flirting with 40 per cent, making their chances of forming a majority government problematic.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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]

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]

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.