I Knew Harper Was An Economist

But who knew he was so economical with the truth? Paul Wells points us in the direction of Greg Weston, who provides us with another example of Mr. Harper denying the existence of a deal -- until reality (and the courts) forced the issue.

Recommend this Post

One Smart Thing

The one smart thing the Liberals did yesterday was to let Ken Dryden go after Psycho Steve over the Cadman affair. Dryden had this exchange with the increasingly sweaty James Moore, in the House.

Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.): next intervention
Mr. Speaker, we know in a TV interview that Mr. Cadman said that he had received certain offers but did not mention a life insurance policy. We know he told his wife that he was offered a $1 million policy and told his daughter and son-in-law the same thing.

We know the Prime Minister was aware that certain offers were being made to Mr. Cadman by people, as he put it, “legitimately representing” the Conservative Party.

Would the Prime Minister not agree, from his own life experiences, that under those circumstances it is far more likely one would decide to be less clear in a TV interview than with one's own wife, daughter and son-in-law?
next intervention previous intervention [Table of Contents]

Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): previous intervention next intervention
Mr. Speaker, the member for York Centre may want to call Chuck Cadman a liar in what he said on TV but we will not call Chuck Cadman a liar. He was clear. He was on the record. He was concise.

Chuck Cadman had a record in public life, both as a member of Parliament and, prior to that, as an advocate for victims of crime. He had an unblemished record of being a person who shot straight, who was honest and who was straightforward. He spoke the truth in those television interviews. He spoke the truth on the record when he said that no such offer was made.

We trust Chuck Cadman. We do not trust the Liberals who sat on this story for a year. They do not believe it. They are talking about all this righteous indignation but they do not believe what they are saying. We believe Chuck Cadman. We believe that he told the truth.
next intervention previous intervention [Table of Contents]

Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.): previous intervention
Mr. Speaker, through all the government's noise and spin, we know that if what Mr. Cadman's widow, daughter and son-in-law are saying is true, this was about offering money for a vote to bring down a government. Buying a vote to bring down a government is unimaginable and unthinkable in Canada. This is as serious as it gets.

I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that if this is true he must resign.
next intervention previous intervention [Table of Contents]

Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): previous intervention
Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for a member of Parliament to get up in this place and accuse somebody of a crime under parliamentary privilege but if that member has the guts and he believes in what he is saying he should say it outside the House of Commons where people can defend themselves.

Moore challenged him to repeat his words outside of the House, thinking it would shut him up. Dryden took up the challenge and, in effect, told Steve to sue him too. Now this is about the smartest thing the Liberals have done in about 3 years. Can you imagine the reaction if Psycho Steve actually sued the greatest goalie of his generation? Steve would never be able to enter the city limits of Montreal again.

Recommend this Post

Is It Raining Toads Yet?

As much as Canadians like him, they had better pray Obama does not become president. Our Prime Minister and the geniuses in his office have so poisoned the well there that we will be lucky to escape invasion should Obama win. Another nice job by the strategic wiz kids in Ottawa.

Recommend this Post

Pounding The Table

There is an old axiom among legalistas that goes:

“If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, pound on the table.”

I guess this is Stephen Harper, pounding the table.

Recommend this Post

Note To Conservative Election Planners

You might want to through a bag over Jim Flaherty. Here is some free advice. Ontario voters might take are starting to take offense at the Finance Minister of their own country telling businesses to steer clear of the province, just because he is in a pissing match with the Premier. One might get the sense that the Conservative Party thinks it can do very well with no seats in this province at all. If they keep it up, they might get their wish.

Update: Could this be a ploy to so anger Ontarians that we start to question equalization? Obviously, Harper doesn't give a shit about Ontario, but ending equalization would suit Alberta quite nicely (and satisfy his own ideological hatred for the program) and Ontario would be the villain.

Recommend this Post

Harperites' Story Changes Again

For those following along, the line is now: "Yes it happened. So what? It was all legal anyway" (which is much closer to my original question of "Is it a crime?"). From the always reliable Jonathan Kay:

The Cadman affair will prove to be the scandal that never was: All it will come down to is that the Harper Tories, in a sensible and humane gesture, offered Chuck Cadman a legally valid arrangement to ensure his financial affairs wouldn't be compromised by Parliament's tumult. It is the Liberals who will look stupid for being sucked in by a journalist doing his best impersonation of Dr. Evil ("One MEEEEELLL-yun dollars.") That $1-million figure must have looked so good to Stephane Dion and the Grits -- such a nice round number to hang a would-be scandal around.

All of those denials last week, that no offer was ever made? Forget about those. They are no longer operative.

Recommend this Post

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam

Jonathan Kay sounds like a desperate man, today. So desperate in fact, that he commits the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" by proxy, in his defense of the Harperites. Forget about the testimony of Cadman's family, says Kay, because Tom Flanagan's resume is long and he is "too smart" to do such a thing. Does Mr. Kay offer any evidence to back up this astounding logical flight of fancy? No, he merely appeals to the emotion of his readers by offering, in essence, the tautological "This can't be true, it just can't be", again and again. As the circle closes on the Harperites, watch for more and more nonsense being generated by their minions both in the MSM and the blogosphere.

Recommend this Post