Saturday, March 1, 2008

Notwithstanding his failed attempt with Chuck Cadman, Harper did succeed in corrupting Canada’s Parliament

By his own admission, Stephen Harper had prior knowledge and therefore involvement in his party’s attempts to bribe Independent MP Chuck Cadman to vote with the Conservatives in 2005 to bring down the Martin Liberals.

This is a criminal code violation as it represents an attempt to corrupt the Parliament of Canada, the very cradle of our democracy.

Stephen Harper has shown other examples of his utter disdain for democracy and his “win at all costs” brand of “leadership”. I use that term lightly. Two widely publicised and/or far reaching examples are of note.

The first incident involved the 200 page manual that had been written by the Conservatives and provided to every Chairperson of a Parliamentary Committee, all of whom were Conservatives.

The purpose of this manual was to advise these Committee Chairpersons on the various strategies and tactics whereby these committee could be rendered less democratic and less effective for the opposition parties, in light of the fact that the Conservatives were only a minority party and the opposition parties collectively represented the majority of Canadian voters.

The purpose of the manual was to subvert Canada’s democratically elected members of Parliament in the committee where they had their greatest opportunity for influence.

The second incident involves the corruption and fraud known as the income trust tax. Do you think it is appropriate for the 308 members of Parliament to be voting on a fra reaching tax measure that asserts certain conditions exist, and yet parliament is offered no such tangible proof that such conditions exist? And yet the conditions that are alleged to exist are infinitely determinable? Sort of like: "Just the facts, mam"

Except Canadians have been denied any facts from the Harper Government or the Department of Finance on this matter.

Their best defense so far has been from Brian Ernwein, a senior Finance official who testified before Parliament: “I guess if we were incompetent, we wouldn’t admit to it.”

That said, I guess Canadians would have to be completely complacent and comatose to accept this as a suitable response. Ditto for the 18 pages of blacked out documents.

Meanwhile this unproven trust tax has caused the takeovers of $65 billion in Canadian Companies , including BCE. These takeovers alone have caused the permanent loss of $1.4 billion in annual taxes. To solve an alleged problem of $500 million a year ion list taxes.

Meanwhile there is no proof. As such, Parliament had been hijacked. Stephen Harper has been successful in hijacking Canada’s Parliament for those extremely narrow interests who are well served by killing income trusts: Foreign Private Equity, Foreign Big Oil, and Canada’s Big LifeCos. They have as their spokesman people like John Manley. Lawyer hypocrite for hire.

Meanwhile all we need are the facts and not statements of hypocrisy from people like John Manley or Jack Mintz or other lesser lights of highly questionable professional qualifications.

In order that Canada’s democracy not be hijacked, we need to heed the call of the Green Party for a public inquiry into alleged tax leakage, and/or the Auditor General needs to do her job as called upon to do so by Parliament and formally by the Liberal Party of Canada, just yesterday

Since when did we disregard what is core to democracy as enunciated by the Auditor General: “Parliamentarians need objective fact based information on how well the Government raises its funds (taxes).”

Still waiting to hear whether the NDP and Bloc think this way as well.

Failing which they will have succeeded in allowing themselves to be corrupted by Harper.

And making them his partners in crime.


Polyian said...

Harper's defenders want to focus on the improbability of a life insurance policy being issued by any insurance company to a man dying of cancer.

This defense totally overlooks the numerous 'other meanings' of the term insurance policy. The term is used by many people in many ways and quite often has nothing to do with a formal insurance policy. Hedging ones bets is often a form of insurance against ones losses. Buying 2 items in case one fails is often called an insurance policy. There are many other ways that the term insurance policy is used by the criminal element. Just watch the Sopranos.

In the case of the bribe, it could have implied any form of compensation that would provide a security blanket to the Cadman family did not have to be a formal policy. The defense the Cons are using is another smokescreen. They are searching for any form of plausible deniability, any chance to seed doubt and shift the topic away from Harper's Lies and the tape.

It's obvious that financial gains were offered, Harper admits this on tape. The rest is all smoke and mirrors.

Anonymous said...


Excellent summary: "the rest is all smoke and mirrors".

DESPERATE smoke and mirrors, brought to you by stooges like Mike Duffy et al.

Na Na Hey hey ... said...

I hear this tune don't you!

Anonymous said...

Na Na Hey Hey:

The song that immediately came to my mind upon hearing of the Cadman scandal was: "Do you believe in magic?" by the Lovin' Spoonful.

I've known that Harper was corrupt ever since November 1, 2006 after I had read the report prepared by HLB Decision Economics entitled "The tax revenue implications of Income Trusts" that I got my hands on after making one phone call.

HLB worked with the Department of Finance to prepare this report for the Goodale consultative round.

Sorry Harper, you lie.

Na na hey hey


Brent Fullard

Dr Mike said...

If Mike Duffy is an indicator of the quality of Conservative based journalism , we are up the proverbial creek.

This guy is an insensitive hack .

I , at one time , looked up to this guy for his factual unbiased reporting--looking back on this , I am sure his reporting was tainted in my eyes by the fact that I did belong to the Conservative Party of Canada & my biased views were a good fit for this guy.

As a person ages , wisdom will rear it`s ugly head --for me it was just in time before I helped to aid the CPC in the destruction of this country.

Duffy`s comments to Chuck Cadman`s daughter were very indicative of the party itself---they are self-centered & uncaring to the needs of others.

Everything is ME ME ME--the ME being Stephen Harper--the rest are just Harper wannabes.


MAW said...

Seems the she said, he said scandal surrounding Chuck Cadman has become the red herring of the century. If the thought of some insurance underwriter giving a life insurance policy to a man with terminal cancer sounds ridiculous it probably is. And all the statements attributed in the book are third party hearsay statements that would never stand up in court, or anywhere else for that matter. Even the author in an interview couldn’t even corroborate the allegations other than to say that is what Mrs. Cadman told him and she wasn’t in the room either. No doubt the conservatives would offer to help Cadman with an election since his riding association was broke and unable to finance a campaign. All other political party’s including the Liberals bolster riding associations this way. And according to the author, nobody was in the room with Cadman and the representatives from the conservatives so any information flowing from that is mere speculation, or a fabrication. As to Mrs. Cadman running for the conservatives, good luck with that. Seems this whole scandal is designed to pump up book sales for the author and increase the dividend paid to the Cadman family for their unsubstantiated statements in the book. What I find most amusing is how the media ran with the story before getting all the facts. Now that down-right irresponsible journalism. Shameful.

Anonymous said...


What "He said, she said" scandal are you referring to?

This Cadman scandal of criminal epic proportions is simply a case of "Harper said, Harper said"

He nailed his own corrupt self.

Have a nice day in Fantasyland....Harpster is toast.

Find some new guru to bend over for.

Dr Mike said...


Chuck Cadman , his wife , his daughter & his son-in-law have never lied to me before.

I wish I could say the same for Stephen Harper.

Which ones do you think I will believe.