Alta4ever

Post Donna's acusation of Harper.

The accusers are liberals, Donna Cadman has never accused Harper. Please post her accusation.

Correction the accusers are liberals. I have not heard Donna accuse Stephen Harper of bribery; I have not seen anything from her in print accusing Steven Harper either. Those are your additions and the liberals additions. Even the author never printed an accusation. Look at the words in the transcripts, and remove your emotional conjecture. Liberals want so desperately to believe this that they are will to make slanderous statements that will have them paying out huge dollars in a civil court.

Hmmmm. Compaire the Alberta and Sask economies. Both provinces have huge energy reserves, one has low corperate tax rates and the other had high corperate tax rates for years. Now which province has the better economy, the high tax base, and the most tax revenues. I'll give you a hint, its the one with the low corperate tax rate, and flat tax system. Jim is right David is wrong.

what politican have we seen who has denied something, give it up. You may not like the conservatives, you may not like the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper. Thats your right, but come on there is noway to prove this one way or the other. This whole arguement is perpetuated on emotional response, because these is no proof.

No what is embarrassing is how people won't drop something when there is no first hand info. An insurance policy, hmmm I have held both Life and P&C insurance licenses, never came across a company that would insure a terminal cancer patient. That doesn't exist. Who’s to say if Chuck was delusional, when he spoke about an insurance policy, a nice side effect of the drugs. I have first hand knowledge of that as I say it first hand in the months leading up to my mothers death. (caused by a cancer tumour) Please post the transcript, it says nothing about a life insurance policy, it only talks about an offer. Please tell me with your mind reading ability what Harper meant when he said offer. The problem is there is no way to tell what is truthful and what isn't. There is no proof, and this bickering serves no purpose. The burden of proof is on the accuser, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Time to stop the wildly emotional accustions.

There is nothing frivilous about this, this has a damaging effect on The Right Hon. Stephen Harper. It is with merit. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric and look at the know facts. If you like the man that is fine, but that does not give you the right to slander him.

How do we know what he said when he was on the drugs he was on. My mother died of a cancer. It was a brain tumour just like chuck cadman's. The last two months she was saying all kinds of weird things because of the meds she was on, she was also delusional. It was really hard to watch, and much of what she said was hard to believe. Chuck may have said something to his wife and child in this state. The problem is we will never know, it can never be proven one way or the other. But for some reason you and many others can't just let this go you will drag the cadmans through the mud, you will soil the name of a good man, all in the pursuit of power. This has been very petty and if it was the liberals or NDP we would have hardly even had a whiff of this. It is time to stop all the emotional rhetoric and leave it alone, as the there is no proof of any wrong doing. Time to use some logic not just political vindictiveness and pettiness.

Wow............Much ado about nothing. Why is something that can not be proved by the ones making the accusations, such a big deal. Lets revisit the recent floor crossings, and what happened. Lets work backwards from the current to the past. Emerson, crossed right after the last election, became a member of Cabinet, no inquiry. Belinda crossed at the at the same vote in question received a Cabinet post, no inquiry. Scott Brison again crosses the floor to a cabinet post, no inquiry. Now lets look at this there is no first hand information of a monetary inducement, just third hand speculation on what may or may not have happened. There was nothing accepted by Cadman, we have Cadman on Mike Duffy and on a separate occasion were he said nothing was offered. As for the very first post of the thread the Cadmans, and the author never said or implied that the Right Hon. Stephen Harper knew about any such offer. They never used the word bribe. These all were added by the liberal party. That is libel and slander, that is why they are being sued. Now I will invite you all down off your high horses to act like rational human beings. There has been nothing but irrational emotional rhetoric on this subject.

Funny if it was an inducement why weren't they charged? A re-embursement, is not an inducement, it is indemification.

If you had spent money on a nomination campaign, and then were asked to step down for some party reason, would you not want to be re-embursed for your expendature? I would. Much different then offer a bribe for a vote in the commons. It would never have changed the out come of the election.

Wasn't that about a candidate nomination, not compensation for a vote? I think it was a different situation.

These are hardly scandals, it is opposition through mud hoping some will stick. Offeres made to past floor crossers have never been held up to this much scrutiny, when there was something. With this and Naftagate, there is precious little, just a liberal party tring to defect attention from the poor showing they have had in opposition. Nothing like the gomery inquiry, that was a scandal. There are no merits to this and I hope Harper sues the pants off the liberals for libel. The liberals have nothing, can prove nothing, and the reason for this is that NOTHING happened.

The time that you have the most influence over the development in a childs life is in the first five years, and I beleive it is worth every sacrifice, even career development for one parent to make sure they are spending as much time with that child that they can in the first five years. I realise that this isn't always possible, but it is the most noble of sacrifices.

There is a solution that has worked for many years, and that is friends and family. When I was growing up, my mother worked part time, I spent on her days off she would look after me and a couple of the neighbor hood kids, when she worked I went to a neighbors house. It worked great. Solutions are all around, but people have to think for themselves instead of expecting the government to take care of them. Society has become lazy and most of the people don't want to take responsiblity for their lives, they want the various governments to do it. People fail to realize that this costs more in an economic sense, a moral sense, and then the huge cost in the loss of freedom. 1. Economic loss services cost more with ever hand added to the jar. When the government is added through hand outs and industry incentives. It means the money has to be collected and filtered through taxes, very ineffecient, costly and indirect. 2. Moral loss - When you children are placed in dayhomes, they are picking up their ethics and morals from influence outside your home, and no amount of regulation will ever be able to police this. 3. Loss of freedom, government invovlement means loss of choices. With the higher taxes required to fund the system you many not be able to afford the better childcare facility on top of the taxes, you will have to make due with the bare minimum offer by the nanny state. To quote my favourite personality of all time - "I contend that a nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle." Winston S. Churchill.

There are no tax incentives that would ever put enough money back into the pockets of business owners that would get them to invest in childcare, it would have to be dictated by the free market, when the need is great enough the markets will respond.

Obama got caught in political double speak. Thats his problem, if he had never done it, he would never had the problem. Very simiple, in fact this has been very good for the Americans because it shows the Americans that he is a typical American politician, it was bound to happen sooner or later.

Aside from the 100/month Harper has done a good job. I never would have offered anything and responed to those question by directing people to my provincial counter part. But that being said people have been conditioned to accept this through many years of this type of policy and I would not have been elected. Harpers gov is the best we have seen in many decades, I hope he can keep this up and fight his way to a grand majority.

It is called a day home which are licensed and regulated, it is not a parallel system. Again reallly this is no business of the federal government it is under provincial jurisdiction, I suggest you talk to your mla or mpp (depending on where you live). Trudeau started this subversion of the constitution, and people have come it expect it, but it is wrong. Provincial governments need to be held to account for this instead of being rewarded for bad social policy by looking for hand outs from a federeal government that has for years over taxed & low balled surpluses, then spent the excess in one off social policy payouts/bailouts to poorly managed provincial governments. You really have no idea how much damage has been done to our federal system of government over the last 40 some odd years. It will take years to reverse this, and bring the governments back in line with the Canadian constitution.

Well then the provinces should be raising taxes for this if it is needed and wanted, the people would support it. This is provincial jurisdiction the federal government has no right to intrude. In fact the federal government we have now has removed some federal tax burden so that provinces can raise taxes to fund this themselves. Define managable. What is managable for me may not be for you. Just another political term that means nothing, but vote buying. People are smart they can and will find a way to adapt, my family did, so have many others I know that have children. It is not societies responsibilty to provide child care, it is the parents. Special needs is a different need then daycare space, and can't be lumped into this argument.

If they want to enhance their program the company should do it and charge more for the extra service, if the consumer thinks it is worth it they will buy the service, and it will stay. Simple supply and demand. The government has no role in this. There are plenty of regulations at the municiple level and provincal level, why waste more money on a federal level that will do nothing. As for licensing and checks it is your responsibility as a consumer to check out your service provider. If there is a problem there are many avenues of resolution from reporting fraduent activity (ie opperating with out proper permits) to reporting abuses of the system. It is your responisbility to look after yourself and your family, not the governments.

Who's to say that 100/month costs more, look at the gun registry and how it ballooned out of control. I would prefer poeple find their own solution rather than dump their problems on the governments. "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston S. Churchill

So are you saying that it is the governments responsibily to raise your children? Or is it yours, the 100/month was never about taking the burden of child rearing away from the family, but to subisidize it so it would be a little easier on those with children. If you want to see what the alternative that was proposed by the libs, just look at Quebec. State run daycare that is run so well that by the time your child can get a space, they are already in school. Its a great system. Blindly throwing money at problems does not solve them, and the government, left or right will not solve this one. This problem will be solved by parents, free markets, and the support of communities, not big government. Its time people come to terms with the fact that government cannot solve your problems.

You're right. I'm not sure what I was thinking, must be the cold meds.

I like your numbers it would mean Ed would be booted at the very first leadership review, and Ted would have a shot again.