...when will he be removed from office?
That post on the Cadman bribery was written March 6th, almost 3 months ago.
It's about time the opposition starts beating the drum for removal of this corrupt government. The Bernier scandal is one thing, but the Cadman bribery really shows how corrupt this current government is. And it's coming all the way from the PMO.
Not my words, but those of Don MacNeil:
Tommy Douglas must be spinning in his grave like a lathe.Yes, yes, we know this. Anything else about the NDP?
The former leader of the New Democratic leader, chosen as the Greatest Canadian of all-time, would be shocked to find out what his party under Jack Layton has devolved into.
This week the New Democratic Party of Canada has decided it will not support an Ethics Committee investigation into the Chuck Cadman Affair.
Pat Martin, an NDP representative on the House of Commons Ethics Committee, says the Cadman affair is not “a good fit for the ethics committee” and that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should investigate.I agree, it's weird for the NDP to fully trust the RCMP. By the way, on other corruption files the NDP had no problem handing it over to an ethics commission first. Double standards for sure.
Pat Martin and the NDP may be the last people who still have faith in the Mounties. The Liberals have also asked the RCMP to look into the matter as well, but have also proposed it go to the Ethics Committee. The Bloc Québecois support the Liberals but Jack Layton and the Conservatives oppose public committee hearings into allegations of bribery leveled against the prime minister.
The Cons motives are obvious. The same could be said about the Liberals and Bloc but the puzzling thing to some is why the Dippers aren’t willing to get to go along.Indeed, we can't trust the NDP on the Cadman file. Shame on the NDP!
The conventional wisdom has the NDP in league with the Harper Gang in trying to silence the Chuck Cadman Affair, because they are afraid the only beneficiary, politically, of the whole scandal will be the Liberal Party and the New Democrats would rather be complicit in a cover-up than risk being hurt politically.
Pretty strong language, I agree, but then again it’s a pretty strong topic. This has the makings of the greatest Canadian political scandal since the Pacific Scandal that brought the end to the first Conservative government of John A. Macdonald.Exactly! Dirty hands are appearing everywhere I look.
So the question (again) is why is Jack Layton running interference for Stephen Harper? If the answer turns out to be for purely personal partisan gain than Layton and Martin have hands as dirty as they allege the Harper Gang’s are.
Also the NDP are coming off a bribery scandal their own.Really?
One where they had to apologize in the House of Commons and pay a cash settlement to a Liberal candidate in the last election that they accuse of trying to bribe one of his rivals. The story was a complete fabrication by a NDP candidate and the party paid a heavy price, both financially, and what would be more important to Tommy Douglas, to their reputation as being the conscious of the commons.Read the whole story: It's not too late to build a better world
It might be something they want to avoid as the Cadman Affair may do collateral damage to Jack Layton’s political objectives.
It's time for our elected members to act. Canada is currently being governed by a Prime Minister who has been caught bribing. How much longer will it take before he's being removed from office, one way or another?
Leave your estimated number of days in the comments section; thank you
Adam Radwasnki in the Globe and Mail today:
In the same Question Period that Jack Layton calls for the head of his chief of staff, Stephen Harper praises the NDP leader for asking good questions.
Naturally, this was in the context of the Liberals not asking good questions. One is left to draw two conclusions:
1.) If the Prime Minister enthusiastic about questions on the NAFTA leak, and angry about questions on the Cadman affair, that's a pretty good indication which topic the opposition should be focusing on. (Hint: not NAFTA)
2.) If you're the leader of an opposition party, and the Prime Minister is saying nice things about you in Question Period, it's pretty obvious you're not doing your job properly.
Yes, Chuck Cadman is liar, at least for Conservatives he is. It's the only option available after deductive reasoning.
Let's take the following Conservative views for a fact:
- Chuck Cadman has told family members that a million dollar insurance policy was offered in return for a vote. We can trust Dona on this since nobody is arguing this to be false, not even the Conservative Party; she's still the nominated candidate for the Conservatives.
- The Conservatives "categorically" deny having offered anything close to a million dollar life insurance.
Well, then there's no other option available then that Chuck Cadman has been lying about what had been offered to him by Conservatives.
So just say it, Stephen, just say what's on your mind: "Chuck Cadman is liar"
Update 1: searching Technorati I just found this article: Why is Chuck Cadman being called a liar?
Update 2: an other option I didn't think off (read the comments)
LINKS
- Wikipedia: deductive reasoning
- National Post: Harper won’t be pinned down on ‘financial considerations’ for Cadman
From the Toronto Star: Unanswered Questions
Mar 05, 2008 04:30 AM
Why does this have to be so hard? Why can't Prime Minister Stephen Harper stand up in Parliament or go before the House of Commons ethics committee and provide clear answers to simple questions?
It's no secret that Conservative party officials back in 2005 tried to persuade independent Member of Parliament Chuck Cadman, who was dying of cancer at the time, to rejoin the Tory caucus and topple Paul Martin's minority Liberal government in a confidence vote.
But what exactly did the Conservatives offer for Cadman's support?
Three Cadman family members – his wife Dona, his daughter Jodi, and his son-in-law Holland Miller – all say Cadman told them, in separate conversations, that he was offered some kind of million-dollar "life insurance" deal. If so, that might constitute a bribe and a crime.
Harper fiercely denies any wrongdoing, and he has threatened to sue Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and others who suggest as much.
Yet when asked two years ago about the policy by Cadman biographer Tom Zytaruk, Harper replied that party officials had "discussions" with Cadman about "financial issues" and "financial insecurity." He also said: "But the, uh, the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election, okay? That's my understanding of what they were talking about."
What offer, exactly? What financial issues? What insecurity?
Did anyone from the Conservative party, or claiming ties to it, offer Cadman a million-dollar benefit, with or without Harper's approval?
Instead of casting a libel chill over the Cadman affair, Harper should tell Canadians what he knows. What led him to conclude there was "no truth" to the insurance story when he looked into it? And party insiders Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley need to shed light on precisely what help they offered Cadman and on what terms.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been asked to look into all this by the Liberals. But Parliament needn't defer to a police probe. The ethics committee should be calling Flanagan, Finley and others to testify. If the Conservatives truly have nothing to hide, they should not be standing in the way of such an inquiry.
Prime Minister,
Doesn't the Zytaruk tape tell us that you asked two of your officials, probably Flanagan and Finlay, to make the case that Chuck Cadman could possibly be receiver of financial considerations for supporting the Conservative Party?
If so I can only conclude the following:
Prime Minisiter Harper, (a) being the holder of a judicial office [...] directly or indirectly, [...] [attempted] to obtain, for another person [Chuck Cadman], [financial] consideration, [in return for support of the Conservative Party][...]
How can any Prime Minister start suing members of an opposition for libel when this same Prime Minister is caught on tape, admitting he took part in bribing a member of parliament?
Only a desperate Conservative named Stephen Harper could do that.
UPDATE: Read my "Question to the Prime Minister that needs to be answered" too.
LINK
- Getting it Right: Harper's ordering of Cadman bribery is a criminal offence
- Audio: Zytaruk recording
From CTV
Harper files notice of libel over Cadman allegations
Updated Mon. Mar. 3 2008 9:46 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
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 e-mail 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.
Cadman ultimately voted to support the budget.
Dona Cadman said her husband, who was sitting as an Independent MP and was terminally ill with cancer, was offered a $1 million life insurance policy to vote against the budget. Her daughter Jodi has also said her late father told her about the offer.
According to a interview with Tom Zytaruk, the book's author, Harper -- then the opposition leader -- said in 2005, "The offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."
The Conservatives have said there is no truth to the life insurance allegation.
The Liberals are pushing for the RCMP to investigate the matter.
Doesn't Harper know that ordering the bribing of an MP is a criminal offence?
Just read the Criminal Code of Canada, section 119:
Corruption and DisobedienceYes, you read that right, directly or indirectly. And although Stephen Harper did not bribe Chuck directly (which explains Chuck's denial that money was offered when conversing with Harper directly), he surely ordered two of his party members, Conservatives Tom Flanagan (close confidant of Stephen Harper) and Doug Finley (Director of Political Operations, Conservative Party of Canada), to do so.Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or 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, or
(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.
 |  |
Um, I don't know the details [...] but [several individuals legitimately representing the Conservative Party] were [...] convinced there [were] financial issues. [...]"Make that case but don't press it", doesn't that sound like an order coming from the top? And that's an order for bribery.
I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and [...] if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't press it. [...]
But the, uh, the offer [of an insurance policy in return for Chuck's vote] was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
Progressive Media
Democracy Now!
Center for Media and Democracy
Human Rights and Activism
Wikileaks.org
Amnesty International
Amnesty International Canada
Human Rights Watch
Transnational Institute
Council of Canadians
Dutch News
Nova
NRC Handelsblad
Radio Netherlands
Qatar
Al Jazeera
UK News
BBC News
Guardian
Independent
US News
Democracy Now!
BC Blogs
Paul Willcocks
US Blogs
Noam Chomsky
Norman Solomon
ZNet Blogs
Buttons
Sponsors
Marketas Bed and Breakfast Victoria BC
Victoria B&B
Personal Life Coaching
