Kincora

I wonder how some Ontario Conservative MPs will vote on the issue if it's a free vote. Stephen harper will be happy to keep this as a free vote, since his party will arrive at a concensus anyhow. However, I wonder what the chance of some Ontario Conservative MPs voting for SSM would be. Ontariuo, by and large, shows support for SSM. Do you think there are some MPs that will try to win over their unsure Ontario supporters ( laying a claim on a future job ) by voting the same way as the residents of their riding feel? I wonder how much of a free vote this will actually be.

But, on the flip side, you cannot ignore the parties all together. It has to be a balance of all three, and I think when a candidate crosses the floor, it spoils that balance. As I have read here, there are definately some good reasons why a candidate could and even should defect form his party, with parties moving left and right to garner votes. But let's be honest, how often does that happen? How often is that only pretense for mask personal political ambition? Some of you say that voters canwait until the next election to display our dissatisfaction. But why can't the candidates wait until the election to jump ship?

I'm sorry to say, but you have earned that label all on your own. You keep going back to that same stereotype of "boozing up hobos." You're really coming off as pathetic. You ask him to see your point, but you make none. The one vague idea you keep throwing out has been disputed and you can't even lift a finger to research it yourself and provice a reasonnable rebuttal. Dear god man, he's given you the links! Click on them, read a little. I'm not saying you have to agree with everything there, god knows I don't, but at least acknwledge the other side and argue it, instead of ramming the same idiotic sentence again and again. "U have the nerve to call me ignorant because I would rather see..." And you have the nerve to call yourself anythign but ignorant with the way you've been posting?

In theory, partisanship would play less of a role. But it hardly seems that way in the United States...

Alot of those numbers seem a little far fetched... I'd heard about Imperial Oil not paying taxes though. Now, Geoffrey, the Liberals are not quite in the same bracket as the Hells Angels, and if you would indite them all by association, then it would extend alot further than that, and alot fo COnservatives would have to be indicted by association for various unseemly acts during Mulroney's time. I'm not saying the Liberals are angels, far from it, but I am a firm believer that this kind of corruption comes hand in hand with politics, always has. The only difference now is that it is becoming more visible with the power of the media.

I could tell they are from CBC when you listed Mulroney's entire cabinet as a scandal. What other news service in this country has no crediability? Of course the left will argue Martin wasn't guilty by association. Well, Mulroney actually settled for cash out of his settlement for Ottawa trying to destroy him. The Tuna scandal is considerable. I still think HRDC, the Gun Registry and Sponsorship, all involving criminal fraud (well not offically the gun registry, but someone is making some kickbacks from that gaurnteed) by our "national party" are in combination the worse yet. Especially because no one has gone to jail. In the private sector, both Martin and Chretien would be in jail. The CEO and CFO should always go down with the ship in the case of fraud from a corporate governance perspective. That's the problem isn't it? It's very hard to pin individual responsibility when it comes to criminal activity of organizations, be it corporate or governmental. We generally satisfy ourselves with the government being torpedoed, or the stocks of that indicted company taking a nosedive. I got the scandals from CBC because it was the best link I found for the subject matter, but I didn't mean to post with any bias. However, there are 6 Liberal scandals there to 4 Conservative, which would'nt seem to me as a very pro-Liberal thing to do right? The gun registry, well, I can't agree with you there. It is a program that has specific aims, and until it is revealed otherwise, we can only argue the program on it's merits. ( costs / crime reduction, etc..) For Mulroney's cabinet, it looks like a string of unfortunate revelations for Mulroney. I believe Mulroney ranks quite highly among Canada's past prime minsters in terms of idealism. He did what he hionestly thoguht was best for the country, just as Trudeau did in his time. Mulroney made some rather unfortunate decisions in appointing his cabinet and inner circle. ( Bouchard...) I can't say I believe the same about Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, or Stephen Harper for that matter. He has some time to prove himself though. Anyways, I don't know about the HRDC. Tell me about it. HRDC created a program to make more jobs, or give grants to create jobs. Heres some things about it: 37 projects were so screwed up that further investigations are to be made 15% of the projects were approved although the recipients had never submitted applications Many applications lacked such stuff as: cash-flow forecasts; budgets; descriptions of activities More than 50% of the projects had no analysis by the HRDC staff More than 33% of the projects had the amount changed (usually upward), and usually without any justification Most projects were not monitored by HRDC 79% of the projects reimbursed expenses without any supporting documentation such as invoices or payroll records Expenses were paid that were clearly not allowed When recipients were audited, many could not produce the supporting documentation for their claims Agreements were so vaguely worded that objectionable expenses - gifts, bonuses, expensive travel, expensive meals - were not prohibited A grant to a hotel in Jean Chretien's riding was announced before it was approved Two trust funds were set up in violation of HRDC rules http://libscam.godsandartists.com/index.php/HRDC_boondoggle This project was in the 1-3 billion range, hence the billion dollar boondoogle. Ah, my mistake. I just didn't connect the acronym to the blurb. That definately seems to be one of the more costly ones doesn't it? It not the most costly. The tuna scandal is deplorable because it is blatantly disregarding the safety of our own citizens under threat of closure.

I could tell they are from CBC when you listed Mulroney's entire cabinet as a scandal. What other news service in this country has no crediability? Of course the left will argue Martin wasn't guilty by association. Well, Mulroney actually settled for cash out of his settlement for Ottawa trying to destroy him. The Tuna scandal is considerable. I still think HRDC, the Gun Registry and Sponsorship, all involving criminal fraud (well not offically the gun registry, but someone is making some kickbacks from that gaurnteed) by our "national party" are in combination the worse yet. Especially because no one has gone to jail. In the private sector, both Martin and Chretien would be in jail. The CEO and CFO should always go down with the ship in the case of fraud from a corporate governance perspective. That's the problem isn't it? It's very hard to pin individual responsibility when it comes to criminal activity of organizations, be it corporate or governmental. We generally satisfy ourselves with the government being torpedoed, or the stocks of that indicted company taking a nosedive. I got the scandals from CBC because it was the best link I found for the subject matter, but I didn't mean to post with any bias. However, there are 6 Liberal scandals there to 4 Conservative, which would'nt seem to me as a very pro-Liberal thing to do right? The gun registry, well, I can't agree with you there. It is a program that has specific aims, and until it is revealed otherwise, we can only argue the program on it's merits. ( costs / crime reduction, etc..) For Mulroney's cabinet, it looks like a string of unfortunate revelations for Mulroney. I believe Mulroney ranks quite highly among Canada's past prime minsters in terms of idealism. He did what he hionestly thoguht was best for the country, just as Trudeau did in his time. Mulroney made some rather unfortunate decisions in appointing his cabinet and inner circle. ( Bouchard...) I can't say I believe the same about Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, or Stephen Harper for that matter. He has some time to prove himself though. Anyways, I don't know about the HRDC. Tell me about it.

Yes, another poll. Good fun they are. Seeing as how this election was fought and decided on the Liberal sponsership scandal, it's time to put this question to you. Which of these famous scandals ranks as the top Canadian political scandal of all time? These scandals were picked off of this website: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngover...t/scandals.html You can read small blurbs about them there. I also don't know very much about political history, but am keen to learn, so I'm sure I missed many newsworthy government debacles. Fell free to put me in my place and post them here.

That's true, that is a reality, but is it not a balance? When we vote for a candidate, in fact, we are voting for three entities. The local candidate, the prime minister himself, and the political party the candidate is associated with. When I vote, I take all three into consideration, since I cannot vote for each seperately. If my local candidate, whom I voted for, decided to cross the floor, I would feel betrayed by him and it would seem to me that my vote is worth even less than I originally thought...

Why could'nt they just ban it though? Not that those reforms are bad ideas, but I don't see why it could'nt be banned if it were just agreed upon and passed as a law. Would this be contrary to a protected right? Freedom of association?

The way that Trudeau in general, and the NEP in particular, was taught in Alberta high schools was a farce. There are threads on this issue if you care to dig them up. Give me a quick sum up if you can. I'm curious.

You're right.. he isn't wrong. He is completely and inexplicably wrong. But its forgiveable.. I went through the same indoctrination in high school here in Edmonton in my day. Well, educate us then...

There have obviously been a couple of very notable cases in the past 10 months. So, my question is, should this even be allowed? In my opinion, these people are being elected to parliament not only to represent themselves, but the partty whose flag thay displayed during the election campaign. The people of Vancouver did not elect a Conservative, nor did the people elect Stronach as a Liberal. ( originally ) I'll leave others to post arguments for, since I am obviously against.

Anyways Shoop, what do you think about the Dingwall payout?

Geoff, he did complain about being forced out, during the inquiries themselves. He was found to have been forced out of his job by the public inquiries. That's why he was payed the balance of his contract. So no, he didn't quit. Yes, he tendered his resignation. He quit. There is no other way to see it. He resigned, over done and over some more. I can complain all I want about being forced to quit. At the end of the day I still quit. If he felt so abused he should have stayed their until he was fired and then sued. But the point of this is that an independant inquiry held that he was forced out, not just Dingwall himself. Sure, it's debatable whether or not he was really forced out, but thats irrelevant. The Liberals payed him out because of the recommendations of an independant inquiry. What else would you have them do? Thumb their noses at the inquiry? Give it the finger and say " screw you Dingwall!" This wasn't a random, pay out for a Liberal supporter, it was just paying off the contract of a wrongfully dismissed employee. That's what I am trying to show since this thread was posted with the intention of showing this payout as scandalous behaviour.

All I was saying was that there are alot of people posting here who see things from a right of center perspective, as I do myself. Don't ruffle your feathers and take insult where there is none.

Geoff, he did complain about being forced out, during the inquiries themselves. He was found to have been forced out of his job by the public inquiries. That's why he was payed the balance of his contract. So no, he didn't quit.

Completely agreed. I hate the Liberals. $420,000 plus benefits... :angry: Hello boys and girls. I ran into this political forum, and after reading, had to register an account and add my voice. I don't often see boards as dominated by Conservative minded people as this one. Anyhow, here's a different perspective on the Dingwall scandal. Dingwall resigned his post because he felt it was important for the mint in order to maintain itself as a profitable organization. Before he took over, the mint was in horrible shape. He was forced out of his position because Conservative MP Brian Pallister accused him of gross misspending. He made these accusations quite public and two inquiries were ordered as a result fo these accusations. What I don't see mentioned by the Conservatives is that Dingwall was exonerated by two, strenuous audits. These audits were independant and not disputed by the Conservatives at their release. The Liberals merely payed out the balance of his contract, which is what any employer should do if they are found to have wrongly dismissed an employee. That's all it is folks. Another point, the accusations by MP Dingwall were found to be utterlybaseless. The cost of the two inquiries was 418,000 dollars... a number very close to the balance of Dingwall's contract that the Liberals payed out....so, Dingwall seems to ahve doubled the cost to taxpayers. And all for unresearched, unintelligent accusations whose only purpose was to create another scandal where none existed. I don't mean to spoil you fun. But this was not a scandal of any kind. If anything, I would look at Dingwall and accuse him of political grandstanding.