normanchateau

Good question. Even if they blatantly lie, Chuck Cadman won't contradict them. Let's hope that they have more integrity than Harper. Harper still has not explained his words on the tape nor denied that he said what he said on the tape.

Mea culpa. I had assumed it was general knowledge that Harper et al had ousted not only Garth Turner (who pointed out Harper's blatant hypocrisy) but also a number of nominated Conservative candidates. For some reason he never ousted that paragon of integrity, Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, who held a riding adjacent to Chuck Cadman's. Grewal's riding is now held by a Liberal MP while Chuck Cadman's Surrey North riding is now held by a NDP MP, Penny Priddy, a close friend of Dona Cadman. Harper actually lost seats now in BC in two consecutive elections. Harper is desperate to win back Surrey North and the inexperienced Dona Cadman, because of the legacy of her husband, is the only candidate who stands a chance. There's no way Harper or his henchmen will get rid of her. The question in her riding now is will she resign?

"The Conservatives challenged the Liberals to make their allegations of bribery outside the Commons, where they are not protected by parliamentary immunity. Liberal MP Ken Dryden, a lawyer, obliged. He reread his charges to reporters after question period, essentially challenging Harper to add his name to the list of Liberals he has threatened to sue. Inside and outside the Commons, he said: "This is about offering money for a vote to bring down the government. Buying a vote to bring down the government. Unimaginable. Unthinkable in Canada. This is as serious as it gets, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the prime minister will agree if this is true, he can only resign, he must resign." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=349925 I wonder why Harper is suing Dion, Ignatieff and Goodale but not lawyer Ken Dryden who made his allegations outside of the House of Commons.

I wonder why this government is so determined NOT to lower personal income tax rates even after years of a huge surplus and increases in government spending. For years, the Reform Party touted the economic benefits of deep personal income tax cuts. Harper was even the Reform Finance critic. Now that he's in government, why are his economic policies more reminiscent of Mulroney than Manning?

It's understandable that Turner was thrown out. In February, 2006, he pointed out to his Conservative colleagues the hypocrisy of Harper bribing Emerson with a cabinet position when Conservatives months earlier had expressed outrage at Stronach's floor-crossing. Garth Turner, if he truly "respected" Harper, should have simply ignored Harper's bribing Emerson. And if he really respected and trusted Harper, he should have also pointed out that offering the unelected and unaccomplished Fortier, his former campaign manager and personal friend, a cabinet position was further evidence of Harper's "integrity" and desire to restore "clean" government.

I was being sarcastic.

By tax cuts, I assume you don't mean income tax cuts. I just looked at the Federal Tax rates on Schedule 1 of my 2007 T1 form. For 2007, they were 15.5%, 22%, 26% and 29%. For 2006, they were 15.25%, 22%. 26% and 29%. For 2005, they were 15%, 22%, 26% and 29%. In other words, for two consecutive years now it appears that the sleazy Harper government has raised the marginal tax rate in a manner which would most affect those in the lowest tax bracket. and they did so at exactly the same time that they had an extraordinary surplus and increased government spending to the highest level in Canada's history. Is this what Harper considers fiscal conservatism? Meanwhile, in October 2007, the Harper government announced and promised a: • personal income tax cut retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007, cutting the lowest marginal tax rate to 15 per cent from 15.5 per cent. I wonder why the reduction from 15.5% to 15%, which merely restored tax rates to where they were in 2005, is not reflected on the 2007 T1 form. Is this incompetence or were the Conservatives merely lying once again as they had about income trusts?

Now that Dona Cadman has issued a press release claiming that she "respects" Harper, I wonder if Harper will issue a press release denying his very own comments to the reporter two and a half years ago. Unfortunately for Harper, those comments were recorded.

And I suppose you believe that nothing at all would happen to a Conservative candidate who does not "respect" Harper... After all, not a single Conservative candidate, once nominated, has been ousted... Her professed "respect" for Harper would have been slightly more credible had she mentioned it last Thursday or even Friday rather than four days later.

I disagree. At least one person unequivocally understands that Cadman was a man of integrity but that Harper knew it! In fact, that person said so during question period in Ottawa on February 29th. In case you missed his comments, here they are: "Hon. Garth Turner (l): Thank you, speaker. When I was a Conservative member of parliament, before that party threw me out, I heard the prime minister call Chuck Cadman a poor M.P. The prime minister said Mr. Cadman was more concerned with ethics and with the country than he was with political organization and power. Mr. Speaker, I have always wondered why the prime minister was so angry at the late Chuck Cadman, but now we know a lot more. Was it simply because he could not be bribed?"

So do you or do you not acknowledge that the Harper government's legislation imposing mandatory six month jail sentences for possession of a single marijuana plant might be construed as socially conservative?

I don't think for a moment that all Muslims in Canada feel this way any more than all Muslims in Denmark feel that way. In fact, Muslims in Denmark made it clear that they did not agree with the fundamentalist Danish Muslim who incited and inflamed the issue to begin with. Sadly, many if not most moderates are frightened to speak out against their fanatical co-religionists. You're creating a straw man by suggesting that those who deplore censorship by radical Muslims necessarily assume that all Muslims favour censorship.

Must be fewer social conservatives in those ridings than elsewhere in Alberta.

Yet that's exactly what MP Nina Grewal and Cabinet Minister Stockwell Day did: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/we...43e&k=85673

That depends on how you define "social conservative agenda." By my definition, legislation imposing a mandatory six month jail term for growing as little as one marijuana plant fits that agenda. Judges currently have discretion in whether they impose jail sentences for possession of a single marijuana plant. The legislation unveiled by the Harper government in November 2007 would impose a mandatory sentence and remove judicial discretion: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...31-3411c2619f58 Does Harper seriously believe that adopting the US approach to marijuana prohibition will bring those Canadian centrists on side? If so, he is out of touch with reality.

Although I've never served, I actually belong to the Legion and frequently chat and drink with those who have served (admittedly in previous wars). Believe it or not, there are members of the Legion here in Vancouver who don't support CPC. Probably most do but I've met many who strongly support other parties, i.e., Liberals, NDP and even Green. How would I feel? I'd listen with an open mind before dismissing or accepting anything he had to say. Just because he's Leader of the Opposition does not mean that he's unreasonable and irrational.

I don't think there's even a slight chance that a party will form that's to the right of Stephen Harper's CPC. When Reform appeared on the scene, it captured the social conservatives, religious right and anyone else to the right of Brian Mulroney, a Quebec social moderate who was recently honoured for his record on environmentalism. As long as Stephen Harper remains leader, those supporters aren't about to move right as they might have had a liberal won the CPC leadership contest. That's good news for CPC. The bad news for CPC is that as long as Stephen Harper remains leader, a majority government is unlikely and probably impossible. Most Canadians are either centrists or left-of-centre. Centrists had no problem voting for Brian Mulroney but they're not about to vote for a social conservative.

How is his mission demoralizing the country as a whole? Only 16% of Canadians want the Canadian mission in Afghanistan extended and only 19% think that Harper's government has effectively explained why we're in Afghanistan: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16524 The mission was scheduled to end in February, 2007. In May, 2006, the Harper government narrowly passed a motion to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan by two years in a 149-145 vote in the House of Commons. Where was Dion's "big mouth" in May, 2006? He was among the 145 MPs who voted not to extend the mission. Do you seriously believe that a majority of Canadian MPs would support extending the combat mission beyond February, 2009, if a vote were held this month? I wonder if even 16% of Canadians would support extending the mission if they actually knew that the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Afghanistan's official name) barbarically permits the legal execution of citizens who convert to Christianity.

And God is not a human construct? My only knowledge of God comes from other humans. Does she communicate with you directly?

What evidence do you have for your statement that we don't like him because he's brown? That may describe some people who want him deported but I see no evidence that it describes most or even many. As the local media have pointed out numerous times, all of his family including four adult children live in India: "Singh has children and family in India who could care for him, he said, and the money that the Sikh community here has vowed to raise for his medical care could go a lot farther in India, where health care has reached Western standards." http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/we...05-c93f025ad1b3 If the Sikh community is willing to pay all his health care costs and his family all live in India, why should he remain in Canada and what message would this send to future illegal immigrants? As the link I provided implies, a majority of Sikhs in the local community also believe that Laibar Singh should be deported. Singh is now in sanctuary in his third temple having been eventually forced out by his former supporters from the previous two temples.

A man locked up in a mental institution has been diagnosed as mentally ill using strict criteria applied by mental health professionals. No sensible person would provoke a mentally ill individual. Unfortunately, there is no mental illness known as religious fanaticism. I wish it were otherwise. Society permits religious fanatics to function, thrive and even become elected to public office. But when religious fanatics start censoring those of us who are not fanatics, and decide what the rest of us can see or hear or do, society must not condone such actions by acting upon frivolous and absurd complaints to human rights commissions.

Afghanistan is no more a "true democracy" than Iran. Both have a democratically elected government yet both have constitutions where human rights legislation MUST not be be contrary to the laws of Islam. If you are born Christian in such countries, then you may practice your religion. However, if you convert from Islam to Christianity, then you can legally be executed.

So we should not deport illegal immigrants if they develop health problems. Is that your point?

Are you saying that Ezra Levant should have known there'd be a complaint to the Human Rights Commission if he published the cartoons, and therefore he shouldn't have published them? Levant: "Why would any rational publisher or editor report on sensitive subjects (read: radical Islam) if they knew they would be tagged with a no-win complaint?" http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/you-have-the...o-your-opi.html

It's interesting to note who granted him the August reprieve and the circumstances which triggered the granting of the reprieve. Let's hope that other illegal immigrants don't view this as the preferred method not to be deported from Canada. Here's the story: "A paralysed refugee claimant can stay in Canada for another 60 days after Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day verbally ordered a stay of his deportation. A massive rally set for Sunday in support of Laibar Singh, 48, was also cancelled after a conversation Saturday between the minister and Singh's chief supporters. Day announced the reprieve Saturday during a phone call with Conservative MP Nina Grewal and two Singh supporters who were in Grewal's office, listening on speakerphone. Day asked if the rally would be stopped if the deportation order was put on hold, said Harpal Singh Nagra, a spokesman for the South Asian Human Rights Group. "The minister told us, 'Cancel the rally and I assure you he won't be deported.'" But Radio India owner Maninder Gill, who was also in the room, said it was Grewal who suggested the rally would be cancelled if Day deferred the deportation. "She said, 'If you guys are going to continue the rally, then they [the CBSA] are not going to make a decision,'" said Gill. Only then did Day speak, said Gill. "He said, 'If I overtake the decision, can you stop the rally?'" said Gill. "I said, 'If you listen to our request, there will be a huge response from the community, and they will know that Mr. Singh will stay in Canada.'" http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/we...43e&k=85673 Nina Grewal has been a remarkably silent MP. Too bad it took lobbying to prevent the deportation of an illegal immigrant to break the silence.