The Conservatives have nothing to hide

Mr.Canada · January 25, 2009

When did Layton say that the position of Prime Minister was the highest in Canada? Better yet, when did Layton become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada?

Wow, you are thick. During the last election Layton said many times he was running to become the PM.

Argus · January 25, 2009

The only way they're like Mulroney is that they're awash in scandal and will probably experience a resounding defeat. I don't really like labels: big 'C', little 'c'; Big 'L', little 'l'

Okay, so tell me how they're different. I bet you can't think of anything.

I'm starting my own political identity. Iggy-licous. I like that better. Big 'I'. All Iggy, all the time. Although he does have a Phd from Harvard, so I guess it's 'Dr. Iggy'.

Lots of people have PHDs from Harvard. Ignatief has yet to actually do anything much. He has yet to enunciate any particular vision or idea or policy platform. And you're going to be a big, heaping fan of his becaaaausssseee..... You think he's cute or something?

Smallc · January 25, 2009

Wow, you are thick. During the last election Layton said many times he was running to become the PM.

What is the highest office in Canada?

Mr.Canada · January 25, 2009

During the last election Layton said many times he was running to become the PM. Someone should email him to inform him and his staff that running for PM is impossible says posters at MLW.

Smallc · January 25, 2009

During the last election Layton said many times he was running to become the PM.

I don't really care because Layton doesn't speak for me in any way. All of this still doesn't make the position of Prime Minister the highest in the land.

Mr.Canada · January 25, 2009

I don't really care because Layton doesn't speak for me in any way. All of this still doesn't make the position of Prime Minister the highest in the land.

It's certainly the highest elected office in the land afaik.

Smallc · January 25, 2009

It's certainly the highest elected office in the land afaik.

That could be argued, yes. Stephen Harper is the most powerful person in the Government of Canada, but not in the country of Canada. It's an important distinction within our system. Anyway, back to discussing the fact that he has nothing to hide.

Mr.Canada · January 25, 2009

PM Harper is a brilliant man and a brilliant leader. He would never do anything to break the Election Laws of Canada. A PM like Harper has nothing to fear and nothing to hide. He is always co operative from what I've ever seen of the man. This is nothing more than secular socialist jealousy and lust for power.

Smallc · January 25, 2009

He is always co operative from what I've ever seen of the man.

:lol:

Mr.Canada · January 25, 2009

I thought you'd enjoy that one.

Progressive Tory · January 25, 2009

I think Count Iggy suits him better than Dr. Iggy. And he almost was.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...e-canadian.aspx

Come to think of it, Iggy does portray an air of royalty.

I love his past, present and future. Intriguing. It gives him such a great perspective of the world and our place in it. We are blessed.

Prime Minister Count Dr. Michael Ignatieff. I'm embroidering the monograms now. Finally Canada will have some International respect, because there won't be any leader of any civilized country, not impressed with his credentials. He's actually better educated than Obama and Hilary. They will love negotiating with him. Intellect, not rhetoric; in a warm, inviting, 'put your feet up' atmosphere.

Go Canada.

Progressive Tory · January 25, 2009

We must put our faith in Jesus Christ. With much prayer and reflection all may see what really must be done. How dire the situation is and how close we are to losing our entire country.

Where did that come from?

Progressive Tory · January 25, 2009

Lol. So again be sure to email your leader Layton as he said this many times.

Do you know that our constitution does not include the term 'Prime Minister'? His position is not even protected under our own constitution. The highest position in Canada is the Governor General's; as outlined in our constitution.

Adrienne Clarkson in her book discusses the role of the GG and how modern day politicians disregard the importance of the office. When comparing Jean Chretien and Paul Martin (whom she didn't like); she states that Mr. Chretien would go to her before making any announcements pertaining to foreign policy or the military. When he decided not to go to Iraq, he had a meeting with her first. She may not have had the power to overrule him, but appreciated the respect he gave her.

She said Paul Martin was the exact opposite, only coming to her when he needed something. She said that during the swearing in, Martin's posse showed up in jeans and T-shirts. She was disgusted.

The relationahip between Harper and our current GG has been described as cordial, though it would appear he's following in Paul Martin's footsteps. No respect for tradition.

Mr.Canada · January 25, 2009

PT typical Liberal arrogance shines through once again. Now he's trying to say that he knows what the GG thinks and how she feels. Is there no end to this arrogance coming from the Liberal Party?

Wild Bill · January 25, 2009

That is absolutely ridiculous. Does drinking beer lead to a craving for Brandy?
Would it surprise you to know that Queen Victoria used cannibus for menstrual cramps. That Louis Hebert brought it back to France and it did such a good job reducing the Queen's migraines that she gave it a 'Royal Charter'. When Jacques Cartier visited Canada he wrote that 'hempe grows wild here'. It didn't. It was planted.

Where do you think the cries are the loudest not to legalize it? The criminals. They don't want to lose such a lucritive business. I say let's put them out of business. Farmers would have better use of the profits and we can use the extra tax dollars.

The "gateway' argument is so illogical I'm convinced whoever uses it must never have gone beyond grade 6 math!

True, most heroin users at one time may have smoked pot. Does that logically mean that pot leads to heroin use? In a pig's eye! Most heroin users have also used aspirin. Or drank Coca Cola. Or beer!

Is beer a gateway drug? Does it inevitably lead to heroin addiction?

Talk about fanaticism over-ruling reason!

I've come to believe that as a society we are getting more and more poor at basic logic skills but it doesn't seem to be the pot smokers who are leading the charge. It's being led by people who make 'gateway' arguments!

Progressive Tory · January 25, 2009

PT typical Liberal arrogance shines through once again. Now he's trying to say that he knows what the GG thinks and how she feels. Is there no end to this arrogance coming from the Liberal Party?

Again, not a 'he'. I was discussing Adrienne Clarkson. You did know that she was no longer the GG? The sitting GG is not allowed to discuss what happens between her and the Prime Minister, so all we can do is speculate.

DrGreenthumb · January 25, 2009

During the last election Layton said many times he was running to become the PM. Someone should email him to inform him and his staff that running for PM is impossible says posters at MLW.

He can still be in the running to become prime minister, all he meant was that he was not aiming for leader of the opposition. If enough NDP Mp's get elected that the NDP have over 50 % of the seats in the house then his party would "win" the election making him the prime minister. If the Ndp Had enough support from elected members of other parties to earn the confidence of the house he could also become Prime Minister.

We as citizens do not elect prime ministers, we elect MP's and the Mp's vote for who will lead Parliament. So one can "run" to become prime minister, but Canadians do not elect a prime minister they elect MP's who in turn decide who will be Prime minister and lead the government.

Funny how none of the "potheads" seem to have any difficulty understanding how our system functions. Seems religious fundamentalism kills brain cells, is Sunday school or catechism a gateway to a life of ignorance?

Edited January 25, 2009 by DrGreenthumb

bluegreen · January 25, 2009

Well I see that the discussion about Conservative Party misdeeds has been effectively deflected. Count Iggy, gateway drugs, Jesus the card carrying Conservative. Anything on this thread except a breach of the law by the CPC.

We don't know exactly what was done, or what exactly the 'laws' are, and to firmly decide that something criminal has happened is just stupid. It's just like the Cadman affair. The Liberals are so eager to fling mud that they'll accuse Harper of bribing the man even though he publicy asserted this did not happen and then his wife ran as a CPC MP afterwards. Seriously?
I'll allow there is a POSSIBILITY that something criminal or fishy happened, but I'm not going to firmly claim it as fact until it's been proven.

A lot of the people crying foul here are posting less on fact and more on wishful thinking.

Actually, the wishful thinking is on the part of the Conservatives, who hope to intimidate Elections Canada, and make this go away.

I have read the Elections Finance Act of 2004, and the Conservative revisions. I have managed National fundraising, and a number of local election campaigns, and I have had a fair bit of professional legal advice and interpretation on it.

First off, the elections finance act is NOT a regulation, it is Law, and furthermore it is a law subsequently ammended, and thus re-confirmed by the Conservatives.

Secondly, I have reviewed the 2006 and 2007 financial statements of about 250 Conservative Campaigns, and there is definitely a smoking gun there. The fact the election spanned two calendar years, with multiple sets of financials made it tricky, but the FACTS are in the public domain. The Financial agents are responsible for ensuring that the funds claimed as local election spending are in fact local and eligible election expenses. Elections Canada's interpretation that the expenses must be incurred locally, for the purpose of electing the local Candidate is almost certainly correct in law. This should go to trial, because the law stipulates simply that the financial agent has to attest to this fact, but doesn't spell out the criteria in detail. The fact that every other Party, plus a fair sampling of Conservative financial agents rejected the interpretation that the in-and-out transfers were legal attests to the need for a legal decision. I will tell you now that if it goes to trial, then the CPC will be badly damaged by a large number of convictions. It will be the Financial Agents, and the Central Party 'facilitators' that will be screwed, probably not the Candidates.

The implications of this scheme are pretty nasty. It represents an attempt to circumvent election spending limits, while at the same time re-directing a taxpayer subsidy to local campaigns that probably aren't legally entitled to the subsidy. This isn't a Liberal Law, it's a Conservative Law. If the CPC is found guilty, then it isn't just a venal fleecing of the taxpayer, it is a conspiracy, and fraud, plus an attempt to buy the election. I don't care which Party does this. They must be tried in a public court, and if convicted of criminal offenses, they must face the consequences. If they are not convicted, then they walk, and the questions go away. In that event, every Party will feel free to juggle the intent and letter of the act, and milk the taxpayer for every penny, just like the CPC has.

Perhaps you will understand now why there are questions as to why Elections Canada has been under assault? I would hope that no matter what Partisan loyalties you have, you would want to clear up this little question as to guilt or innocence?

Edited January 25, 2009 by bluegreen

Argus · January 25, 2009

First off, the elections finance act is NOT a regulation, it is Law, and furthermore it is a law subsequently ammended, and thus re-confirmed by the Conservatives.

Call it what you will. There are no penalties for what they did other than them not being given a refund from the government.

Secondly, I have reviewed the 2006 and 2007 financial statements of about 250 Conservative Campaigns,

In other words, you're a fanatic, and we should take anything you say with a very large dose of salt.

. Elections Canada's interpretation that the expenses must be incurred locally, for the purpose of electing the local Candidate is almost certainly correct in law.

The Tories obtained legal opinions first which said that what they were planning was allowed. To my mind that shows people who had no intention of actually breaking the law. THey simply intended to take advantage of what they saw as a loophole. Laws are generally so poorly written in Canada, and subject to so many different interpretations, I really don't blame people if their interpretation turns out to be wrong. And we don't yet know that it is.

This should go to trial, because the law stipulates simply that the financial agent has to attest to this fact, but doesn't spell out the criteria in detail. The fact that every other Party, plus a fair sampling of Conservative financial agents rejected the interpretation that the in-and-out transfers were legal attests to the need for a legal decision. I will tell you now that if it goes to trial, then the CPC will be badly damaged by a large number of convictions.

Go to trial? There is no trial involved. There are no charges involved. The only court involved is the one the Tories have brought into the case by sueing Elections Canada. Elections Canada isn't sueing the tories, and isn't charging them with anything.

Perhaps you will understand now why there are questions as to why Elections Canada has been under assault?

You mean being sued? I understand perfectly. It's because you fear and loath conservatives, and want them all imprisoned. If this same scheme had been launched by the NDP you'd be on here posting about how nothing criminal was done and everything was in good faith and that it's a mountain out of a molehill.

bluegreen · January 25, 2009

Call it what you will. There are no penalties for what they did other than them not being given a refund from the government.
In other words, you're a fanatic, and we should take anything you say with a very large dose of salt.

The Tories obtained legal opinions first which said that what they were planning was allowed. To my mind that shows people who had no intention of actually breaking the law. THey simply intended to take advantage of what they saw as a loophole. Laws are generally so poorly written in Canada, and subject to so many different interpretations, I really don't blame people if their interpretation turns out to be wrong. And we don't yet know that it is.

Go to trial? There is no trial involved. There are no charges involved. The only court involved is the one the Tories have brought into the case by sueing Elections Canada. Elections Canada isn't sueing the tories, and isn't charging them with anything.

You mean being sued? I understand perfectly. It's because you fear and loath conservatives, and want them all imprisoned. If this same scheme had been launched by the NDP you'd be on here posting about how nothing criminal was done and everything was in good faith and that it's a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't fear and loathe conservatives. I have voted conservative a number of times, and there are a lot of Conservatives for whom I have an abiding respect.

I really laugh when you dismiss actual evidence as suspect because it is difficult to collect! You can take the evidence with salt, or pepper, or whatever your favourite spice is. It exists, and is in the public domain, so either refute it or shut up. I for one don't accuse people of serious offenses without evidence. It actually did take me about 15 hours to download all the statements, and assemble them into spreadsheets. It's called RESEARCH, and it's part of the electoral process that publicly available information will be utilised to hold politicians to account.

Sheesh, I guess if I were a conservative, and gave this boring work to a private investigator it would not be the work of a fanatic, then it would be the work of God's chosen ones eh?

As far as the CPC spin that the legal dispute is their lawsuit against EC, HaHaHaHa! That's why the mounties raided them huh? Because of the civil suit? Dream on dude. The Lawsuit was pre-emptive, and an obvious ploy to gag EC. Do you understand this legal tactic? Getting rid of Jeanne Pierre Kingsley, may prove the more effective tactic. If they can scare the hell out of the EC functionaries, then maybe they can save their asses.

Now as far as the NDP goes, if they were the culprits, then I doubt very much that the Conservatives would have sued EC. I equally doubt that EC's director would have been silenced. I would be cheering from the sidelines as the dipper culprits were led away in cuffs last spring, and the Public Prosecutor would have acted with dispatch!

normanchateau · January 25, 2009

The "gateway' argument is so illogical I'm convinced whoever uses it must never have gone beyond grade 6 math!
True, most heroin users at one time may have smoked pot. Does that logically mean that pot leads to heroin use? In a pig's eye! Most heroin users have also used aspirin. Or drank Coca Cola. Or beer!

Is beer a gateway drug? Does it inevitably lead to heroin addiction?

Talk about fanaticism over-ruling reason!

I've come to believe that as a society we are getting more and more poor at basic logic skills but it doesn't seem to be the pot smokers who are leading the charge. It's being led by people who make 'gateway' arguments!

It's not clear whether Harper opposes decriminalization because he buys the discredited gateway argument or if he opposes it for ideological, i.e., socon, reasons. What's clear is that his position inexplicably shifted.

In 2003, the Liberal government introduced a bill to decriminalize possession of less than 15 grams, making it subject to a fine but no criminal record.

In 2004, Stephen Harper said he opposed decriminalization but that "we can look at fines rather than jail terms for possession under five grams." Most Canadians agreed, and continue to agree, with that position.

In 2006, when Harper came to power, he killed the Liberal bill even though it was supported by opposition parties and the majority of Canadians. Thanks to Harper, courts now can continue to sentence offenders to jail for possession of even trace quantities of marijuana.

Clearly Harper's rationale in ignoring the wishes of most Canadians has yet to be explained by Harper.

Perhaps playing to his socon supporters is more important to him than his civil libertarian supporters who sincerely believe in less rather than more government.

ToadBrother · January 26, 2009

As far as the CPC spin that the legal dispute is their lawsuit against EC, HaHaHaHa! That's why the mounties raided them huh? Because of the civil suit? Dream on dude. The Lawsuit was pre-emptive, and an obvious ploy to gag EC. Do you understand this legal tactic? Getting rid of Jeanne Pierre Kingsley, may prove the more effective tactic. If they can scare the hell out of the EC functionaries, then maybe they can save their asses.
Now as far as the NDP goes, if they were the culprits, then I doubt very much that the Conservatives would have sued EC. I equally doubt that EC's director would have been silenced. I would be cheering from the sidelines as the dipper culprits were led away in cuffs last spring, and the Public Prosecutor would have acted with dispatch!

It's a wonder to me that a political party is actually allowed to sue the federal election authority.

Harper is a crook, pure and simple.

guyser · January 26, 2009

QUOTE(Mr.Canada @ Jan 24 2009, 05:44 PM)
Smoking pot leads to harder drugs.

Cite please. And no foul smelling farts from you either.

Didnt think there would be one forthcoming. Consistent if nothing else.

You are a drug user too. So are your kids. Why be such a hypocrite?

I am not suprised your hypocricy is not replied to , however, you should realize that pretty much every person in this country is a drug user. That includes you, your kids, your parents the neighbours , me and so on.

To throw around the 'druggie' lable as so many do around here is hypocritical . We should all have the right of free choice , not just the ones you or others want to have.

Alta4ever · January 26, 2009

Didnt think there would be one forthcoming. Consistent if nothing else.
I am not suprised your hypocricy is not replied to , however, you should realize that pretty much every person in this country is a drug user. That includes you, your kids, your parents the neighbours , me and so on.

To throw around the 'druggie' lable as so many do around here is hypocritical . We should all have the right of free choice , not just the ones you or others want to have.

I would be happy to give you the right of free choice, if you would do the smae with health care, why should I subsidize you and your habits. I would be quite happy to have everyone pay some form of health care premium underwritten on their lifestyle.

ToadBrother · January 26, 2009

I would be happy to give you the right of free choice, if you would do the smae with health care, why should I subsidize you and your habits. I would be quite happy to have everyone pay some form of health care premium underwritten on their lifestyle.

So what are we going to do? Have mandatory drug tests? And should it end there? Will we have a cadre of secret police photographing people "Aha, you were at McDonald's and ordered two Quarter Pounders" or "We saw you parachuting"? Would drinking homo milk instead of skimmed milk bump up ones premiums?