Mark Holland has a problem with the truth.

[Michael Bluth]

So Holland contradicts himself on his Stockwell Day fiasco.

From Holland's Web site.

On March 22nd Holland said he 'anonymously' recieved the tainted documents.

Mr. Holland was referring to documents that came anonymously into his possession indicating that former MP for Okanagan-Coquihalla Jim Hart requested compensation totalling $22,674 in exchange for resigning his position to make way for Mr. Day, the then newly-elected Leader of the Canadian Alliance

On April 4th, he admitted to finding the files.

“At no time did I read the contents of any of the personnel files,” says Holland. “In fact I had no contact whatsoever with those files other than at the news conference. I’m told the personnel files were found lying in drawers and that once researchers discovered what they were, they were put aside and not read.”

Why the lie on March 22nd Marky Mark?

[Figleaf]

You should by now know enough to provide a proper citation for materials you are purporting to quote. Get with the program.

Without this information, there is no point in making any reply to these petty jabs at Mark Holland. BTW, it seems you must be imagining something, as there is no contradiction apparent in Hollands comments you've quoted.

Anyway, the real story here, the one that citizens need to be concerned with, is the serious allegations that the Criminal Code political corruption provisions were breached ...

"Former MP refuses to confirm or deny he got rich payout to vacate seat for Day Canadian Press

Published: Saturday, March 24, 2007"

Hart said ... [stockwell] Day told his first caucus meeting in Ottawa that anyone who resigned early "would bear no financial losses."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...7653b90&k=37328

See Criminal Code of Canada (especially sections 119-134):

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-...al=50&length=50

65% of MLW respondents believe this matter should be investigated and that Day should step aside, at least until the matter is cleared up.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8647

[stignasty]

You should by now know enough to provide a proper citation for materials you are purporting to quote.

Michael Bluth/Ricki Bobbi's purpose here isn't to inform and discuss, it's to spam the party line.

[Canuck E Stan]

Anyway, the real story here, the one that citizens need to be concerned with, is the serious allegations that the Criminal Code political corruption provisions were breached ...

If it was a real story, you wouldn't keep going back to a news article that in one day will be a month old.

As a wanna be news hound you're living in the past......get a real story and a life.

[Figleaf]

Anyway, the real story here, the one that citizens need to be concerned with, is the serious allegations that the Criminal Code political corruption provisions were breached ...

If it was a real story, you wouldn't keep going back to a news article that in one day will be a month old.

You seem to think that media attention is what makes a story a story. My, how that rhymes with 'tory'.

... get a real story and a life.

Get civics, integrity, Parliamentary propriety, the rule of law, and a life.

[Fortunata]

If it was a real story, you wouldn't keep going back to a news article that in one day will be a month old.

It seems to me that this is the type of mentality politicians count on from the public. A very short attention span. That's how they get elected and that's how they stay in power.

As to the story, who does not want to know if malfeasance took place? Shouldn't we all want to know? Whether or not money was negotiated and paid to let Day run in that riding is the issue. Wrong doing is wrong doing no matter which party. That's if people were really interested in truth, honesty, principles and ethics.

[Canuck E Stan]

Same old,same old.

Keep repeating the same "story" over and over, again and again.

Doesn't change anything one way or the other.

It's still the same.

Who are you trying to convince?

Go ahead start another thread about Stockwell.

It won't change a thing.

Give us something new to go on,or give it up until there is something.

[Michael Bluth]

You should by now know enough to provide a proper citation for materials you are purporting to quote. Get with the program.

Man your arguments are lame. Here's what I said.

From Holland's Web site.

www.markholland.ca

Michael Bluth's purpose here isn't to inform and discuss, it's to spam the party line.

But you are here to inform and discuss? Really. Do add some information or discussion.

[madmax]

Go ahead start another thread about Stockwell.

It won't change a thing.

Give us something new to go on,or give it up until there is something.

Michael Bluth started this thread. It could have went into the Stockwell Day thread. But I am not certain if it had to be in the same thread. It is about a different person.

[Michael Bluth]

Go ahead start another thread about Stockwell.

It won't change a thing.

Give us something new to go on,or give it up until there is something.

Michael Bluth started this thread. It could have went into the Stockwell Day thread. But I am not certain if it had to be in the same thread. It is about a different person.

I started it for a reason. Say what you will but Holland's actions were definitely questionable on this file.

Is Holland under investigation?

If it had been a CPC member who had done what Holland didn't wouldn't Figleaf be up in arms?

[Figleaf]

...Holland's actions were definitely questionable on this file.

Such crapola.

If it had been a CPC member who had done what Holland didn't wouldn't Figleaf be up in arms?

Why don't you ask Figleaf? I bet he'll tell you that NO, he'd be more interested in the apparent likelyhood of a criminal code breach by those who secured a safe seat for the leader (Day) to run in.

[Shakeyhands]

I thought we already decided that Holland was a bad man, and that Stockwell may have done something that is actually contrary to the criminal code.

To the CPC supporters, I have no issue with the RCMP investigating both men, do you?

[geoffrey]

To the CPC supporters, I have no issue with the RCMP investigating both men, do you?

I'd hardly call myself a CPC supporter anymore, but I'm with you on this one.

[Canuck E Stan]

To the CPC supporters, I have no issue with the RCMP investigating both men, do you?

Me either, let's wait and see what the RCMP say......oh!.....can't do that here on the forum,some posters here can't wait and want to natter on about it indefinately.

[Figleaf]

Me either, let's wait and see what the RCMP say......oh!.....can't do that here on the forum,some posters here can't wait and want to natter on about it indefinately.

If you agree to the idea of an investigation, I can't see how you would think one of the Investigees can be in charge of the force carrying out the investigation. What would you think of having Mark Holland in charge of investigating Mark Holland?

Honestly, it's kind of troubling that Conservatives seem to see this as 'just politics'. It's much more than that. It's an important point of transparency and good government. And it's a time-honoured principle of parliament ... when a minister has a potential conflict of interest with his or her portfolio, they step aside. Examples old and new, which were much less clear-cut than this one, have all done the same thing. The most recent is from Ontario where Minister Sorbara left his portfolio until cleared in a securities investigation. Sorbara never admited wrongdoing and he was eventually vindicated, but he understood that parliamentary tradition had to be respected in the mean time.

[Canuck E Stan]

Me either, let's wait and see what the RCMP say......oh!.....can't do that here on the forum,some posters here can't wait and want to natter on about it indefinately.

If you agree to the idea of an investigation, I can't see how you would think one of the Investigees can be in charge of the force carrying out the investigation. What would you think of having Mark Holland in charge of investigating Mark Holland?

Honestly, it's kind of troubling that Conservatives seem to see this as 'just politics'. It's much more than that. It's an important point of transparency and good government. And it's a time-honoured principle of parliament ... when a minister has a potential conflict of interest with his or her portfolio, they step aside. Examples old and new, which were much less clear-cut than this one, have all done the same thing. The most recent is from Ontario where Minister Sorbara left his portfolio until cleared in a securities investigation. Sorbara never admited wrongdoing and he was eventually vindicated, but he understood that parliamentary tradition had to be respected in the mean time.

Sorbara stepped aside BEFORE they decided to investigate?

[Michael Bluth]

Why don't you ask Figleaf? I bet he'll tell you that NO, he'd be more interested in the apparent likelyhood of a criminal code breach by those who secured a safe seat for the leader (Day) to run in.

What name did you think you were posting under?

[Figleaf]

Sorbara stepped aside BEFORE they decided to investigate?

I know you want to make some fictitious distinction between being "Formally Investigated" and simply investigated, but the conflict of interest is the same in either way.

[Canuck E Stan]

Sorbara stepped aside BEFORE they decided to investigate?

I know you want to make some fictitious distinction between being "Formally Investigated" and simply investigated, but the conflict of interest is the same in either way.

I'm going to accuse you of doing harm to the MLF by preventing debating on relevant topics, so until Greg decides to investigate those accusation,it's in your best interest that you stop posting here until there is or is not an investigation.

Whether there is or is not an investigation on your harming the MLF, your returning will be based on Greg.

Next week, another poster may make another accusation towards your persistance on this topic and therefore you will have to stop posting again until there is an investigation by Greg.

The week after, a poster who thinks your rambling on Stockwell is getting stupid ,will lodges a complaint to Gregg,again you will have to stop posting until Gregg decides wheither it should be investigated.

Seems fair,yes?

[Figleaf]

Sorbara stepped aside BEFORE they decided to investigate?

I know you want to make some fictitious distinction between being "Formally Investigated" and simply investigated, but the conflict of interest is the same in either way.

I'm going to accuse you of doing harm to the MLF by preventing debating on relevant topics, so until Greg decides to investigate those accusation,it's in your best interest that you stop posting here until there is or is not an investigation.

Whether there is or is not an investigation on your harming the MLF, your returning will be based on Greg.

Do you really not get this??

I'm not Greg's boss. Stockwell IS the boss of the RCMP.

[Canuck E Stan]

I'm not Greg's boss. Stockwell IS the boss of the RCMP.

And the Queen is the boss of England.

[jbg]

See Criminal Code of Canada (especially sections 119-134):

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-...al=50&length=50

Having read those sections, I don't see how any apply. The public official in question was not being paid for performing or forebearing from any act. A resignation from office was not "sold"; the parliamentarian was arguably paid his stipulated salary to the end of his term. That's it.

[Figleaf]

Having read those sections, I don't see how any apply. The public official in question was not being paid for performing or forebearing from any act. A resignation from office was not "sold"; the parliamentarian was arguably paid his stipulated salary to the end of his term. That's it.

This is the second time you've raised this point. The first time you didn't acknowledge the information I supplied in response, and now you're merely repeating your faulty interpretation.

Please be advised:

First, some of the sections specifically name resignations within them. Did you notice that? If not how could you have failed to see that?

Second, it is a very dubious assertion to suggest that a resignation is not something performing or refraining to perform something. What authority do you rely on for that?

Third, being paid your salary for work you are no longer doing certainly seems like a money benefit. There is no apparent carve-out in the law that says salaries are not benefits.

I must say, it's surprising how much at sea you seem to be in the area of legal interpretation.

[Shakeyhands]

Having read those sections, I don't see how any apply. The public official in question was not being paid for performing or forebearing from any act. A resignation from office was not "sold"; the parliamentarian was arguably paid his stipulated salary to the end of his term. That's it.

This is the second time you've raised this point. The first time you didn't acknowledge the information I supplied in response, and now you're merely repeating your faulty interpretation.

Please be advised:

First, some of the sections specifically name resignations within them. Did you notice that? If not how could you have failed to see that?

Second, it is a very dubious assertion to suggest that a resignation is not something performing or refraining to perform something. What authority do you rely on for that?

Third, being paid your salary for work you are no longer doing certainly seems like a money benefit. There is no apparent care-out in the law that says salaries are not benefits.

I must say, it's surprising how much at sea you seem to be in the area of legal interpretation.

On the chance that JBQ has you blocked (and not me too!!! ;-) )

[jbg]

On the chance that JBQ has you blocked (and not me too!!! ;-) )

1. I am not JBQ. I'm JBG, unless you have something derogatory in mind;
   
2. I have not blocked anybody, yet. Are you looking to be the first? and
   
3. I hadn't read the statute when I made my first post. I did by the time of the second post. I don't see eye to eye with you on that. I'm not qualified to give a formal opinion since I'm admitted to practice only in New York State. Additionally, as you know from watching "Talking to Americans" I know nothing about Canada and I'm stupid.