So Ignatieff wants to try and ride on with the government contempt thing. Well, the first point to make is the reason the government even had to deal with such crap is the fact the opposition parties outnumber the Conservatives. If the Chretien/ Martin Liberals had of been in minority, let's take a look at a few of the notables who could be alleged in contempt of Parliament.
1, Jean Chretien. Chretien stood in the house for two years and stated he never talked with the head of BDC regarding a loan for the golf course in Shawinigan. It was only when Frances Bedouin came forth Chretien admitted as much. ( it's also noteworthy Bedouin was victorious in a lawsuit that found he had been systematically attacked emotionally and monetarily as a result of outing Chretien.
2. Paul Martin. Martin told the house his company, CSL had received roughly $2 million in government contracts when the amount was in the hundreds of millions.(Martin later stood in the house and corrected the record, with the amount in the range of $166 million)
3. Art Eggleton. Eggleton was also found to have possibly misled the House by speaker Peter Milliken, who much like the Conservatives had his fate sent to committee. For some reason the Liberal dominated committee never found Eggleton in contempt, despite proof directly from Hansard.
4. Alfonso Gagliano. Gagliano stated all rules were followed in the sponsorship program. When the shiiite hit the fan Chretien named him Ambassador to Denmark, rather than have him answer questions in the house concerning the scam.
5. Lawrence Macauley. Macauley was booted from cabinet after it was learned he had given the university in his provice federal funds. That university just happened to be headed by his brother. Macualey used the O.J. simpson defence, stepping down from cabinet to clear his name. Still waiting Mr. macauley.
6. Judy Sgro. Ms. Sgro got caught up in a situation as a cabinet minister which was turned over to the ethics commissioner. Sgro stood in the House and stated the ethics commissioner had completely exonerated her, when in fact the report found her partly responsible.
7. Any Liberal who stood in the House and stated all rules were followed in regards to the sponsorship program. The AG had in fact notified the Liberal government previously of problems and improprieties with the program.
Obviously there are many more. For example, the Liberals led by Ignatieff claim Bev Oda misled the committee. Well then, what to make of this: "OTTAWA - MPs went behind closed doors Wednesday night to decide whether to pursue perjury charges against half a dozen politicians and bureaucrats who said one thing at the Gomery inquiry and another when they testified before the Commons public accounts committee. "
Feel free to add more into the comments section Just be sure to included the word alleged. Seems someLiberal MP's like to email me threatening legal action.
Well, Paul, with any luck these ALLEGED Liberal MP's will be out on their ALLEGED butts and an ALLEGED Harper majority can revisit AdScam and a few other ALLEGED Liberal criminal acts and throw some ALLEGED Senior Liberals in jail...
ReplyDeleteLOL. Well said.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. Any rational person has contempt for Parliament. I certainly do. Why should it bother me if the Conservatives hold a rational opinion?
ReplyDeleteNice list to arm yourself with should a Liberal come knocking. Well presented.
ReplyDeleteChretien is a proven liar. He should have resigned or been forced out yet not one Liberal had the personal integrity to resign from caucus in protest. Which is "da proof, coz a proof is a proof" that being Liberal is contemptible. Hence, to vote Liberal is to have contempt for Parliament.
Harpers getting tough questions by reporters in Toronto over his coalition letter.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the article in todays National Post: Harper faces his own coalition monkey
AToryNoMore (or rather Liberal for life), still trying to flog a dead horse. Let us keep a few vital facts in mind. When a party winning the most seats, seeks cooperation from opposition parties, that is normal procedure in a Parliamentary Democracy. When a losing party seeks to overthrow a duly elected minority government by forming a 'coalition', that is an attempted coup to gain power.
ReplyDeleteI also note how you totally sidestepped the subject here, which is contempt of Parliament.
And Harper answered the questions, pointing out the facts and non-facts from 2004. Ignatieff now says he won't form a coalition if he wins the election. Duh. That's not the question. Will Ignatieff support the thrown speech and budget if Conservatives get another minority? Guess you have to ask David McGuinty, cause Ignatieff still won't address that scenario.
ReplyDeleteMaybe those alleged charges are what is driving the coalition and the media. The media had to know about a lot of it and kept quiet.
ReplyDeleteAnd how about that liberal senator just convicted of fraud.
I keep hearing about 2 conservative senators convicted of something, who are they or is that another lie that the media refuses to correct.
Have had 3 days to listen to local gossip, and the response is, get it over with, we need a majority. Those comments coming from Edmonton to the border.
2004 coalition. Conservatives and Bloc never even had the required number of seats to beat out Liberals and NDP. That's why it would take all three parties to bring down the government. So I guess you might be able to beat that horse were it not for Jack Layton's own words in 2004, found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://twaud.io/qMn0
Is it written in stone somewhere that if a newly elected govt falls on the SFTH that the GG must let a coalition govern. If the so called contempt charge is a first, why not another election in a few weeks as another first.
ReplyDeleteAnd who says that PMSH has to call the House back immediately. I think he can wait a year. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants to Count Ignatieff and partners in the coalition.
Hey, ToryNoMore....
ReplyDeleteYou just keep on digging for garbage-dump nonscandals.
WHERE THE HELL IS THE $40MIL YOUR PARTY STOLE FROM TAXPAYERS PRIOR TO'06??
And your lying APPOINTED leader wants to puff about democracy and ethics.
NO QUARTER
I get a howl out of this. In Montreal Ignatieff says no to a coalition but suggests Harper's got some splaaaainin to do about his past hotel meeting with Layton and Duceppe for a coalition.
ReplyDeleteIgnatieff's question about this directed to Harper is getting lots of traction with the press.
This aint going away.
Oh my...I'll bet the conservatives strategists and spin doctors are panicking over this one.
An excellent post! How soon they forget - if 2004 is allowed tobe brought up, then so is Adscam. And Shawinigate - and the broken GST promise for that matter.
ReplyDeleteCare to comment on the link I posted at 11:48? The one where Jack Layton emphatically denies there being any coalition agreement in 2004. Try google too. Duceppe has repeatedly stated, prior to the 2008 election, the Bloc would never particapate in the federal government. Duceppe's own words.
ReplyDeleteI thought the John Ivison article in the National Post was very good. Its a great read. See the tile below.
ReplyDeleteJohn Ivison: The continuing evolution of Ignatieff The Politician
The Finance committee demanded costing for the crime bills, but the F-35s' costing was not included in that ask' I believe.
ReplyDeleteThe Standing committee on Standards and Procedures got that information, maybe later than when it was asked, but they got it.
Now, what about the Liberals' costing of the gun registry? Didn't they say it would cost only $2 million? Didn't it cost $2 billion instead? So, shouldn't they be charged in contempt retroactively?
OK, OK, I'm being facetious ... but if you provide numbers that later turn out to be entirely bogus, why should the Finance committee insist on having costing to the penny before the implementation of legislation?
-- Gabby in QC
Still can't comment on Layton's comments in 2004 regarding a coalition? I patiently await.
ReplyDeletehttp://twaud.io/qMn0
The gun resistry cost 1 billion according to conservative government estimates.
ReplyDeleteThe conservative government was also going to have a back door long gun registry at the retail level.
The conservative government in a legislative backgrounder also sited a Swiss Study that said Canada may have saved up to $1.4 billion per year in gun related injuries and deaths since 1995.
Mart T:
ReplyDeleteThere is very little precedent for the Canadian GG to go on, as there has been only one coalition federally in 144 years. If the newly elected government fell on the Throne Speech, he would ask the 2nd largest party leader to see if he could get confidence of the house. At that point the leader might show him some kind of coalition agreement, or he could simply try to govern on a case by case basis. If this 2nd leader could not govern, then a new election could be called. The GG has quite a bit of leeway to make his rulings. Number of seats and a party's momentum are considerations, also what was pledged, or promised during a campaign.
Presumably His Excellancy is reading up on the King-Byng affair. This is my understanding, but I am far from a constitutional expert, as it must be said, are most media pundits.
maryT said...
ReplyDeleteMarch 27, 2011 11:49:00 AM PDT
And who says that PMSH has to call the House back immediately. I think he can wait a year. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants to Count Ignatieff and partners in the coalition.
___________________________________
Mary,
The conservatives a couple of elections ago asked us to Stand up for Canada.
Just what kind of Canada were we being asked to stand up for?
First, it was the Liberal government that estimated the gun registry at $2 million. They had a majority at the time. It wasn't till years later the true costs came out as a result of an audit by the AG. Much like Adscam, there were millions unaccounted for with no paper trail to follow.
ReplyDeleteAs for the coalition, can you not address Layton's comments from 2004?
good grief....
ReplyDeleteThe $2million registry ONLY ended up costing 1billion...
And about that $40 mil? And don't bother with In and Out, that was not public funds. You know, the tax bucks the Liberals actually said were THEIRS... (Don't remember who, but when AdScam was on the news a senior Liberal actually said to a reporter he didn't understand why Canadians were upset after all it was "our money"). And those particular Liberals around when AdScam came to light are still there, are they not?
NO QUARTER
good grief....
ReplyDeleteThe $2million registry ONLY ended up costing 1billion...
And about that $40 mil? And don't bother with In and Out, that was not public funds. You know, the tax bucks the Liberals actually said were THEIRS... (Don't remember who, but when AdScam was on the news a senior Liberal actually said to a reporter he didn't understand why Canadians were upset after all it was "our money"). And those particular Liberals around when AdScam came to light are still there, are they not?
NO QUARTER
Paul - for your convenience I embedded Mr. Layton's rant into a post. I'm planning to do a transcript later.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oxygentax.com/2011/03/further-to-2004-coalition-questions.html
According to the written Constitution, a sitting of Parliament is required at least once a year.
ReplyDeleteAnd it doesn't say how long that sitting has to last.
The leader of the party with the mosts seat will be called by the GG to ask him to form a govt.
And if the current PM is defeated, the gg can't ask another party leader to form a govt until the current one resigns.
Interesting information re this situation on google. So, if PMSH is re-elected with a minority on May 2, and is asked to form a govt, says yes, he could wait till May 1, 2012 to call the House to order. May 2nd will not decide the election, there will be recounts and a lot of other stuff has to happen before EC declares it a done deal. But, I think we will get a huge majority and watch as the anchors explode when reporting it. Wonder how many will call it quits. No senate seats, as most of them are too old. All those years of a@@ kissing down the drain.
Sorry, Paulsstuff, do you have a link to Jack Layton's statement on the 2004 non-coalition rather than the tweet link?
ReplyDelete- Gabby in QC
OK, never mind, I heard the tweet at BLY.
ReplyDelete-- Gabby in QC
Sorry Gabby. I forgot to mention Joanne deserves the credit for that tweet. Very interesting. So either Layton or Duceppe is lying.
ReplyDeleteRead from the Conservative Government Summary. Its all there.
ReplyDeleteA Billion for the registry
Backdoor registry.
Up to $1.4 Billion on gun related injuries and deaths since 1995
Bill C-24: An Act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Firearms Act (non-registration of firearms
that are neither prohibited nor restricted)*
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&query=5323&Session=15&List=ls
You know buddy, I think I'll just ignore you till you address the Layton comments regarding a 2004 coalition, the one where he completely dismisses a coalition. Also Duceppes comments pre-2008 about the Bloc never taking part in the federal government.
ReplyDeleteYou brought it up at 11:34 and now seem unwilling to address the subject you brought up. which had nothing to do with the original post.
http://twaud.io/qMn0
Sorry 'bout my previous post, didn't mean to put it there twice.
ReplyDeleteI recall a story during AdScam that somebody(the AG?) found a number of "foundations" created by the Liberals under Chretien and Martin. These foundations apparently contained billions but were untouchable and exempt from audit.
NO QUARTER
1995 to 2004, that is a lot of money considering the gun registry was to stop all that harm. Who was in power those years, liberals.
ReplyDeleteMost of that was incurred under liberal govts, if that is a true figure.
maryT said...
ReplyDelete1995 to 2004, that is a lot of money considering the gun registry was to stop all that harm. Who was in power those years, liberals.
Most of that was incurred under liberal govts, if that is a true figure.
March 27, 2011 1:15:00 PM PDT
___________________________________
Well you know Mary, If you look at the Conservatives government's leislative summary, it suggests that the firearms registry has saved up to $1.4 billion per year in gun related injuries since 1995. So that would be approx 1.4 X 15 years = $21 billion in those saving in costs of gun related injuries and deaths.
So back out the $1 billion form the $21 billion and you would have a $20 billion dollar saving.
Hey there not my numbers, its what the Conservative government put out.
An you should believe them!
A torynomore brings back memories of Gayle. Drops in with something not on topic, refuses to even address it when they are called, and then move on to something else that has nothing to do with the original post.
ReplyDeleteJust ignore until he/she actually addresses Layton's comments. Today in questioning Layton talked of a 2004 coalition. In 2004 Layton said there wasn't one. Sounds like he's in contempt of Canadians.
March 27, 2011 1:32:00 PM PDT
ReplyDeleteSay PaulStuff, I never brought up the gun registry. Others have. Its the favourite go-to subject for conservatives. They need to know their stuff before they speak though. Buts thats OK, I'm up for it.
And Layton's comments? Check my new post. One of Layton's things ain't like the other.
ReplyDeleteCoalition letter 2004
ReplyDeletehttp://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/reality-check-stephen-harpers-2004-coalition-letter/
I say bring it all up. Adscam, shawinagate, the broken gst promise... then the in and out scam, let's not forget Harper's pledge NEVER EVER to tax income trusts, and his reckless spending like a drunken sailor, the BILLION bucks on the G20, and oh yes, the incredible amount of billions to be squandered on new jets now, when apparently, our economy is "fragile". The overwhelming number of Canadians are against this purchase, so yeah, bring it alllll up.
ReplyDeleteJust remember though, the overspending and scandals of the conservative party happened under Harper's watch. Unless we also want to saddle Harper with past leader's indiscretions, like money in manilla envelops? Shall we also include all this? C'mon people, surely some of you have a brain and think this through, this sort of bantering is simply insulting it's so stupid.
As for the 2004 thing, only an idiot would see it as any different than a lib coalition. Harper suggested he, in second place could take power with cooperation with the bloc and the ndp. There simply is no other interpretation, and the circular arguments I've read are nothing but semantics.
The results, are the same. A leader who didn't win the election, relying on support and cooperation of the ndp and... the bloc (GASP!!!) to stay in power.
But all this shouting about the coalition sure takes the focus off of Harper's rather abysmal record thus far.
Anon, get off the koolaid. Those jets will cost xx number of dollars over 20 yrs, you seem to think it will a one time cost.
ReplyDeleteIf investors had not panicked they would not have suffered re the tax, and if Scott had not tipped off his friends a lot of liberals would not have made millions. Every member of the G8/G20 must host said event and it costs money. Most of it was for police protection against the hooligans who caused untold damage and cried when arrested. Wonder how many of them are in London doing the same thing. I hope you have lots of valium for May 2nd. You are going to need it. You will not convince any of us that PMSH is a bad PM.