Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Harper testifies he authorized offer to Cadman

BRIAN LAGHI

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:57 PM EST 03/09/08

In testimony in his libel suit against the Liberal Party of Canada, the PM says offer of life insurance policy preposterous ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Mean Machine from Bugtussle, Canada writes: Kingston penitentiary is calling.
  2. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Okay, who's first under the bus?
  3. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Now, now mean machine, Dion won't be going to prison, his party will only be coughing up $3.5 million.
  4. J Law from Canada writes: The Liberals had better win this election as they need those 'brown envelopes' to become active again to pay for this lawsuit.

    Grab you wallets fellow Canadians, the Liberals are trying to get elected again.
  5. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Fascinating to think that the tape's authenticity might be decided and made public during an election campaign.
  6. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: As opposed to the pristine white envelopes Conservatives favour handing over during sumptious brunches in fancy hotel rooms, J Law?
  7. Joe Little from Cowtown, Canada writes: Harpo is a liar.
  8. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: As I did stand upon my watch upon the hill,
    I look'd toward Birnan, and anon methought
    The wood began to move.
  9. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: It's a question of truthiness. Mr. Harper said he ''heard Mr. Cadman was willing to side with the Tories but couldn't because of financial distress and fear of losing an election'' ('heard' in italics).

    It is both plausible and implausible that Mr. Cadman would be willing to fight another election and to go with CPC. Plausible because he didn't know how much time he had left; implausible because he knew he didn't have much time left.
  10. rick from river city from Canada writes: Harper is not a detail guy. This testimony is probably the depth of his personal involvement. Dion will need a copy of the insurance policy to avoid more debt on this one.
  11. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Curiouser still that Harper neglected to sue Zytaruk, the man he accuses of 'doctoring' the tape.

    How's Dona Cadman's nomination going? Is she still on?
  12. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: Wow, very telling. If he knew and admits it then why in the world would he sue the Liberal party without real grounds? I guess as Flannagan pointed out the old reformers' real goal isn't to govern Canada but to bankrupt the Liberal party.

    Nothing like tribal hatred for all things centered and liberal to get the base frothing and donating cash. What has happened to this country?
  13. garlick toast from Canada writes: Finley's about to get hung out to dry.This is close to bribery and Harper okayed it.He can't now claim that the tape is doctored and Finley is guilty of vote buying.'We are clearly transparent'.
  14. bob london from Canada writes: Which insurance company? Vern/Dalton and Dion could even sell their wares.
  15. William J. (Willy) Godfrey from Whitby, Canada writes: There is something very smelly here!!!!!
  16. Philip Yu from Toronto, Canada writes: Dona's still running. Penny Priddy won't. This ongoing case might just inject the kind of life into the upcoming election that it needs. Or in other words: 'Sarah Palin, meet Dona Cadman...Dona Cadman, Sarah Palin.' Bring it on!
  17. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: rick from river city from Canada writes: Harper is not a detail guy.

    Sure he isn't! The guy's a micromanager of the first order. Sad he couldn't keep his details straight three years in a row...

    All it takes is one loose thread before the whole pair of pants unravels.
  18. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: But but but Philip Yu, was Chuck Cadman lying to his wife on his deathbed? If Chuck Cadman was a liar, why would Finley and Harper want him so bad? Poor Dona! And her kids are lying too! How much more awful can it get for the surviving Cadmans?
  19. rick from river city from Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: All it takes is one loose thread before the whole pair of pants unravels.

    ... that explains Dions new shorts... If you think anyone could micromanage the federal government than you really dont understand the institution. Every leader micromanages their party but like we heard recently in committee politicians and money never meet.
  20. Georges Dordor from Canada writes: It is so funny ,to see that as soon as Harper fans band feels that there could be anything that could touch their more than perfect Christian master how they loose control and go back to history ( the liberal scandals etc..... they have paid for that, time to find another excuses ). Peoples cool off... This is only politics . Harper as so many politicians has proven us that he is as sneaky and not worth to be trusted . Peoples , if you can't take the heat or put a comment that make sense get off the kitchen or try macrame.
  21. garlick toast from Canada writes: I'm surprised 'libel chill' hasn't closed this thread.
  22. Sammy Whammy from Jail time for Harper!, Canada writes: Criminal Code of Canada:

    Bribery of judicial officers, etc.

    119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who*

    (a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

    *(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.
  23. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: It should be pretty simple to clear up. The riding association just needs to provide details of the 'seed voter program' and the details of the 'repayable loan' that the riding association was willing to take out for a dying man. Also, the riding association can provide details about how Cadman would be a shoe-in as THE candidate just like that, no nomination process, no vote, no input from the riding members. Easy to do!

    Pretty slick of old Chuck to bamboozle his wife and children with the fit of anger he displayed about two Harper party reps approaching him with an insurance offer and him throwing them out of his office, just to set up this sting from beyond the grave.
  24. gary wilson from Calgary, writes: Why is this not getting more press? Harper is in real trouble here.
  25. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: rick, Dion has nothing to do with this case. Dion wasn't in this particular picture. Nice try. Looks like it's Harper in the short pants, all alone. Soon to be boxers, then briefs, then orange dayglow.

    Harper and Black, penpals at last!
  26. rick from river city from Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: this sting from beyond the grave.

    .. and now, The Twilight Zone.
  27. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: rick from river city, Harper wasn't 'government' when this went down.
  28. Sammy Whammy from Jail time for Harper!, Canada writes: The article reports: It was Mr. Harper's first detailed account of his role in the so-called Cadman affair and, during four hours of testimony, he offered two different versions of when he first learned about Cadman's financial troubles.

    ==============================

    Two different versions, eh?

    That's pure Harper alright.

    Two different versions on income trusts, two different versions on fixed elections ....
  29. Mean Machine from Bugtussle, Canada writes: Nice one Sammy
  30. William J. (Willy) Godfrey from Whitby, Canada writes: So, someone is a liar in this affair. I wonder who that could be? Perhaps, one should do some research to discover whether anyone of those involved has ever lied or has shown a pattern of not telling the truth. Oh! Income Trusts, Atlantic Accord, Fixed Elections, the Cologna Accord. What do you think?
  31. mike sty - from Canada writes: Mr. Harper's first detailed account of his role in the so-called Cadman affair and, during four hours of testimony, he offered two different versions of when he first learned about Cadman's financial troubles.
    ----------------

    Two versions.......same Harper

    Harper = Liar
  32. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Someone best be looking out for the Cadman secretary who went off radar when this story first broke. It would be just awful if anything happened to him.
  33. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: gary wilson from Calgary writes:

    'Why is this not getting more press ? Harper is in real trouble here.'

    An Excellent question --

    You might also want to add....

    Why is a story about some nobody named Palin currently placed as the top story in Canada's National newspaper ?

    Cheers
  34. bob gervitz from United States writes: Boy, that sure sounds like bribery to me, and authorized from the top of the heap too.

    It always seemed implausible to me that Cadman himself-a dying man, his wife-a CONSERVATIVE candidate, and his family-would had nothing to gain by rejecting the bribe, would claim bribery by the CPC. Why would all these people go to the trouble if untrue?

    And now it is clear from Harper's own words, under oath, that he a) knew of the situation and b) authorized the approach.

    Can't be much more plain than that!
  35. rick from river city from Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: rick from river city, Harper wasn't 'government' when this went down.

    no, but he was a party leader which was the second part of the post.
  36. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: The thing I find somewhat interesting about this report is the final statement by Mr. Harper that (the party, one presumes) 'cannot agree under any circumstances to provide a personal benefit' to a candidate before or after an election. This is a bit counter to the alleged practice of the Reform/Alliance/CPC, which has 'induced' candidates to step aside (Jim Gouk, Alan Riddell, Ezra Levant). I can't give too much credence to Mr. Harper's assertion.
  37. mike sty - from Canada writes:
    Harper offered two different versions of when he first learned about Cadman's financial troubles.

    ??????????????

    Tell me lies

    Tell me sweet little lies

    tell me lies, tell me , tell me lies

    Oh, no, no you can't disguise

    Tell me lies

    Tell me sweet little lies

    tell me, tell me lies
  38. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: So what, rick? Harper all-of-a-sudden became a micromanager when he ascended the pinnacle of office? Seems unlikely.
  39. garlick toast from Canada writes: 14 yr. max. penalty for doing what he admitted doing under oath.He must be very worried.OTOH, the Arar investigation found clear indications of wrong-doing but no charges were laid.
    I think Harper meant to say ' Canadians won't recognize this party when I'm through.'
  40. tom johnson from Toronto, Canada writes: I KNEW STEVIE BOY WAS A MANIPULATOR, CONTROL FREAK AND A BULLY: NOW WE KNOW HE`S A CROOK TOO. LIKE HIS REPUBLICAN BROTHER, NIXON.
    WHAT A DISGUSTING ATTEMPT TO PERVERT DEMOCRACY: I HATE HARPER!
  41. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: exactly diane marie, and Harper said '... and Doug Finley certainly wouldn't have done it because Doug is not a ... personal benefits man.'
  42. rick from river city from Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: So what, rick? Harper all-of-a-sudden became a micromanager when he ascended the pinnacle of office? Seems unlikely.

    No Mrs W... my original post was that it is impossible to micromanage government... that started this conversation. It is a Toronto media echo chamber favorite to assume any PM could micromanage. Not humanly possible.
  43. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Well, this certainly explains the rapid weight loss... looks good on him!
  44. Free The West Free The West from Free the West, Canada writes: You know, this whole thing is a reflection of the Eastern media's desire to twist every story to their agenda.
    The real story here is that Cadman was going to vote against his party and his conscience in order to prolong the Liberal government at the time. This was to ensure that his wife would get a bigger life insurance payout based on him being an MP for a longer time. This is the real story, that Cadman was selling out his vote for more money for his family. But no, the G&M had to twist this into an anti-Conservative headline, and practically had to enoble Cadman to do so.
    This paper is also willing to sell out, sell out the truth to cater to their Liberal masters.
  45. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: rick from river city, in light of recent developments and the issue of Harper going south in the micromanaging department I will have to agree with you. Have it your way. I'm sure Stephen Harper never knew this was coming. Like this.
  46. Ryan Lemay from Canada writes: I don't understand why Harper would think that he can beat Dion in a defamation case. To me it seems simple. Dion's website was closely mimicking, if not quoting what was earlier writtin in the Cadman autubiobraphy? Why is this going to court? Would any case like this have to show Dion without reasonable cause slandering the prime minister? This doesn't make any sense. Can you sue for defamation when someone quotes anothers work?

    And the fact that Harper wants to have an election at this same time that this inquiry is in play, or at least delay it in calling the election. Either he is going to win big or this case is going to fall apart as well as his hopes of a re-election.
  47. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Harper does seem to have given a completely different story while under oath ?

    On the positive side, this likely means that the PM is, at least, competent enough to know when he is required by law to tell the truth...

    On the negative side, this could mean that his many other flip flops (ie. Atlantic Accord, Income trusts, Bill C-16 regarding fixed Federal elections, cancellation of the Arctic patrol shipbuilding program, Kelowna Accord, etc.) may have also been the result of blatant dishonesty.

    Cheers
  48. Free The West Free The West from Free the West, Canada writes: Now lets look at the wording of the G&M headlines:
    'Harper testifies he authorized offer to Cadman'

    Then in direct contradiction:
    'In testimony in his libel suit against the Liberal Party of Canada, the PM says offer of life insurance policy preposterous'

    The first line is the main headline, the second is subtext which is beyond the reading and comprehension thresholds for many G&M readers. I bet the G&M editors duck their collective heads when they see their old journalism instructors in the streets.
  49. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Bad boys, bad boys
    What'cha gonna do?
    What'cha gonna do
    When they come for you?
    Bad boys!
  50. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Free the West, Harper admitted that he authorized an offer of assured nomination, a repayable loan to float Cadman in the next election, and the benefits of some sort of voter seed program dished out by the riding association.

    In his own words Harper has testified to authorizing this offer.
  51. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: At same time Paul Martin bought Belinda Stronach`s vote, a CPC member of parliament, with a Minister`s job. And what was that for?
  52. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Care to back that allegation up with evidence, facts or testimoney, pierre?
  53. garlick toast from Canada writes: Free willy,Harper was trying a mis-direct by throwing in the 'insurance plan' thing.The criminal code seems clear that any inducement is illegal.
    Is a 'personal benefits man ' like a pimp?
  54. Don M from Canada writes: Bottom line, Dion is an foolish person. They will spend 5 million dollars and nothing will become of it. No insurance company would ever insure a dying man and they have all stated that.
    End of story.
  55. Master Liberal from Canada writes: How much double-speak can one endure in an elected official, the Prime Minister no less.

    complete abuse of power and authority.

    I again make my offer to disaffected harper worshippers - you may worship me now. I shall drink your sorrow and make a joyous punch for all including you to consume.

    You may join the party.
  56. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Yes, the CPC would never violate EC laws about bribing candidates would they Mr. Riddell?
  57. garlick toast from Canada writes: Straight out life insurance plan? unlikely. However there are life insured mortgages for one example.Or maybe just a dip in that famous 'war chest'.They've got millions in donations.
  58. rick from river city from Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Free the West, Harper admitted that he authorized an offer of assured nomination, a repayable loan to float Cadman in the next election, and the benefits of some sort of voter seed program dished out by the riding association. In his own words Harper has testified to authorizing this offer.

    none of which is illegal. an assured nomination is not an office, a repayable loan is just that, a loan. the voter seed program is additional spending from the federal party in strategic ridings. this same set of circumstances would exist for a number of candidates in all parties, always has.
  59. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Who were those masked 'personal benefits man' men who visited Chuck, Dona and the Cadman children say visited Cadman's office two days before the vote?

    Don M. Dion has nothing to do with this. Nice try at a drive-by, but you missed. What we need to know is what or who was floating the 'repayable loan' Harper testified about. Any idea, Don M.?
  60. Yogie Bear from The Forest, Canada writes: The truth of the election timing is clear as Harper can't remember his lies.
  61. William J. (Willy) Godfrey from Whitby, Canada writes: Hey Harbinger: So, I did not spell Kelowna correctly. Big deal!!! What is your point? Is this a case of attacking me because you cannot attack my argument? Just wondering!
  62. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: rick, please, take a look at this!:
    Sammy Whammy from Jail time for Harper!, Canada writes: Criminal Code of Canada:

    Bribery of judicial officers, etc.

    119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

    (a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

    *(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

     Posted 03/09/08 at 11:22 PM EDT

    Benefits are benefits, from riding offices or members of parliament, their staff, hirelings etc. Read it and weep.

    Say, did Harper ever get the bill to prevent incarcerated parents from seeing their children passed? Just wondering.
  63. William J. (Willy) Godfrey from Whitby, Canada writes: Hey Harbinger! I almost forgot. It takes a 'doofus' to know a 'doofus'!!!!!
  64. Dana Dana from Canada writes: The G&M again calls the Harper Conservatives 'Tories'.

    John Diefenbaker was a Tory. Robert Stanfield was a Tory. Joe Clark was a Tory. Even Brian Mulroney was a Tory.

    Those men had Canada's welfare at heart. They respected our institutions and our traditions. They and the party they led were honourable and trustworthy. As much as I disagreed with them I never once believed that their motivations were less than honourable.

    Harper's brand of conservatism is another kettle of fish altogether.

    Viewed with a long lens, not just one or two elections, his stated aims would have confederation becoming little more than a nominal condition. Provinces, like US states, would become so much more autonomous and disconnected from a federation that our current understanding of the Canadian state would be meaningless.

    I don't think this is well understood as the Conservatives have done a good job of removing all references to Harper's past writings and speeches. The national media have helped in this by not referring to that past body of work which he has never disavowed.

    Should Harper gain his majority and be able to repeat it at least once more we would awaken to a Canada changed beyond all recognition and unrecoverable.

    Just as he and his closest confidantes have always told us would.
  65. garlick toast from Canada writes: rick from river city from Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Free the West, Harper admitted that he authorized an offer of assured nomination, a repayable loan to float Cadman in the next election, and the benefits of some sort of voter seed program dished out by the riding association. In his own words Harper has testified to authorizing this offer.

    none of which is illegal. an assured nomination is not an office, a repayable loan is just that, a loan. the voter seed program is additional spending from the federal party in strategic ridings. this same set of circumstances would exist for a number of candidates in all parties, always has.

    ------------------------------------------

    He was offering in return for Cadman's vote which would have brought down the gov't.
  66. graham g from Canada writes: With 55 broken promises, how
    exactly does one go about
    swearing an oath to tell the truth?

    http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/index.htm
  67. Bill Woodcock from Canada writes: Free The West Free The West from Free the West, Canada writes: Now lets look at the wording of the G&M headlines:
    'Harper testifies he authorized offer to Cadman'

    Then in direct contradiction:
    'In testimony in his libel suit against the Liberal Party of Canada, the PM says offer of life insurance policy preposterous'

    The first line is the main headline, the second is subtext which is beyond the reading and comprehension thresholds for many G&M readers.

    Then I would suggest you CPC'ers start reading something that you can comprehend, like Bugs Bunny. LOL
  68. R I from Canada writes: pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: At same time Paul Martin bought Belinda Stronach`s vote, ...

    Might I remind you Pierre - one word - EMMERSON.
  69. rick from river city from Canada writes: Mrs W.. read it many times. The reason there is a court case is because the necessary level of detail to make any legal decisions has not yet occured. Even a simple word like benefits has many meanings when applied to an individual, or an office, or an organization. As I said, what you call personal benefits, are benefits of office available to all MPs. That posters make generalizations based on less information is to be expected, as is the use of catchy headlines to sell newpapers. Application of the CCC at this point is simply partisan.
  70. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: There is the assumption that any life insurance offer would have to come from an insurance company. If I sign a legal document that says upon your death I will pay you $1 million, that is a life insurance policy despite the fact that I am not an insurance company. Any wealthy individual interested in bringing about the defeat of the LPC at that particular time (where the CPC saw the LPC as vulnerable over Adscam) could have been prepared to sign such a document. Any group of religious zealots wanting social change could have backed such a legal contract. The fact that it is doesn't make good business sense for an insurance company to make such an offer is irrelevant to whether or not such an offer could have been made and would have constituted a valid, legally binding life insurance contract.
  71. rick from river city from Canada writes: Dana Dana from Canada writes: The G&M again calls the Harper Conservatives 'Tories... blah, blah, blah,...

    oh, is it that time - a nice long rant on the infamous hidden agenda. Dana, Rosanna, Dana.... go to the LPT or NDP site and get some new material.
  72. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: pierre lefebvre, an independent Quebec would be culturally threatened as part of a Anglo N. America much more so than Quebecois culture is as part of Canada. For that very reason, independence would spell the end of the Quebecois. You can't produce all of your products locally and, in the absence of the larger Canadian market with bilingual labeling requirements, you would be getting English-only products or no products at all.
  73. North Star from Canada writes: Harper is liar who cannot be trusted.
  74. garlick toast from Canada writes: The offer was benefits for bringing down the gov't.No doubt there are weasel words and hair-splitting phrases which will walk the tightrope between legality and illegality, but the intent is clear and the spirit of the law was broken.
  75. Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes: I always find it amusing to hear that some person or another still believes whatever Harper says. Think about it. How stupid do you actually have to be to listen to whatever Harper has to say and actually believe the man? It's defies comprehension yet it exists! I have the same trouble with George Bush. Both of these men are unabashed liars and yet there are people who would be willing to contort reality and accept their lies as the truth.
  76. North Star from Canada writes: Harper authorized the attempted bribe of a man dying of cancer - shameful and contemptible.

    Harper is a liar who cannot be trusted.
  77. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: rick from river city, there is no hidden agenda. It is all there for anyone who cares to look it up and read it. Harper on uniting the right: 1) the new conservative party may not have room for Red Tories (i.e., socially progressive conservatives). 2) The LPC have already implemented the fiscal conservative agenda, what is missing is a party to represent social conservatives. 3) the social conservative coalition of the new united conservative party will come from the West, rural Quebec, and immigrants across the country from socially conservative backgrounds. Specifically, those from China and India. It's quite interesting, then, that these groups were specifically targeted for special recognition by the government once you are aware of Harper's vision for the new conservative party.

    On the issue of abortion, etc...Harper states for obvious tactical reasons that a CPC government will not introduce laws outlawing abortion, SSM, or reintroducing capital punishment. There is a loophole, however, in that Harper also promises to allow free votes if these are introduced as private members' bills. In other words, if a party member is interested in introducing such a bill, all members of the CPC are free to support such legislation. In a hypothetical majority CPC government, that is virtually indistinguishable from it being part of the party platform. It is party policy through stealth means. If Harper meant the CPC would not support such legislation, he would commit to whipping his vote against any such private member's bill.
  78. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: About this repayable loan to a terminal man? Who was the signatory on this loan? Surely the riding officers knew they were on the hook for floating Cadman's run at re-election, this time under the Harper banner. Who would that person be who would sign such a repayable loan, to a terminal man?

    Questions, questions and more questions. Clearly, an offer was made and the current Prime Minister knew about it those years ago.
  79. rick from river city from Canada writes: garlic toast... Dion should have split more hairs between the intent and spirit of a law before he slandered as to which side of the tightrope this circumstance fell on. whenever some poster are unable to legally implicate the current government they resort to the intent and spirit rebuttal. The intent and spirit of ones actions will be determined by the court under motive.
  80. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Oh let's do NOT get sidetracked by issues re: Quebec, or SSM or abortion or any myriad of problems. The issue today is, what did Stephen Harper know about the offer he testified he knew about, when did he know it, and what were the details? This is what concerns Canada at the moment.
  81. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: .
    I believe Chuck Cadman's daughter.

    Jodi Cadman: 'He just said, 'I have something to tell you,' and he told me that he was offered a life insurance policy, that my mom and myself would be taken care of.'

    'When he told me, actually I have to admit, I burst into tears because the position he was put in.'

    'To turn down the thought that my mom and me would maybe be taken care of financially at a time when there was no gain for himself broke my heart that he was put in that position.'
    -----------
    What does Jodi Cadman have to gain be saying that this conversation took place?

    What does Stephen Harper have to gain by saying that it didn't?
  82. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes:

    Wow, what a misleading headline.

    It's got top spot this week...
  83. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Read the Vancouver Sun article. Harper doesn't say that no such offer took place. He acknowledges that such an offer could have taken place. He just states that it wasn't an offer that the 'official' CPC agents, Finley and Flanagan, made.
  84. West Virginian Albino Mexican from Canada writes: Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes: I always find it amusing to hear that some person or another still believes whatever Harper says. Think about it. How stupid do you actually have to be to listen to whatever Harper has to say and actually believe the man?

    ===============================================

    Hmmm, tough question.

    Perhaps explaining why Liberal supporters have a history of listening to whatever comes out of their party's mouth and actually believing it might shed some light on the answer.
  85. rick from river city from Canada writes: bobby dy... you can play hypothetical and future tense all night but in the end it is just opinion. The Conservative Party took a long time to unite and will not be intentionally pulled apart by some western socialists. the west is quite happy in the current Conservative Party in its current circumstance. The party has come a long way in a short time but will continue to be influenced and monitored by Tories across the country. The party is solid.

    your use of abortion as even a discussion item puts you on the same desperate level as dion. The topic has not arose under any circumstance under the current government yet it, and others you list, are prime examples of the scary hidden agenda attempt, again.
  86. Alpha Beta from Help, Andorra writes: Mrs Whiggins you busybody! Are you on patrol here 24/7? Who's paying your stipend???????????????????
  87. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: In light of this new information, who thinks Stephen Harper is going to spend 300 million dollars of taxpayers money trying to get re-elected?

    A) Is Stephen Harper man enough to stand up for himself and Canada while this case is heard?

    or

    B) Is Stephen Harper the kind of man who would waste hard working Canadian taxpayers' money while this case is heard?

    Vote here:
  88. Shane Jordan from Winnipeg, Canada writes: West Virginian Albino Mexican - I've read over your comment a few times and can come to no other conclusion but that you're saying Harper is as equally untrustworthy as Dion and you would be an idiot to listen to either one. Not that I would try to argue the point, but is that what you were really going for, or is this more a case of out of the mouth of babes?
  89. graham g from Canada writes: The judge (Hackland) was appointed by Justice
    Minister Nicholson,
    with Harper's approval, in May '08 and
    the judge and Harper's lawyer (Dearden)
    worked at the same law firm, Gowlings.
    There are obvious conflicts of
    interest here and a definite need for individuals
    to be recusing themselves.
  90. rick from river city from Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Oh let's do NOT get sidetracked by issues re: Quebec, or SSM or abortion or any myriad of problems. The issue today is, what did Stephen Harper know about the offer he testified he knew about, when did he know it, and what were the details? This is what concerns Canada at the moment.

    you do exaggerate to make a point.... Cadman is at least fifth or sixth in the concerns of Canadians from any recent polls. It is a liberal straw dog that the courts will clarify for you Mrs W. You seem desperate tonight to assign an unnecessary urgency to it all. Patience and we will know the truth.
  91. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: rick from river city, of course it hasn't arisen. That would be political suicide. Whether or not any of these would be introduced as private members bills is an unknown and promising a free vote on the matter is not reassuring.

    As for your comments on social conservatism, all it tells me is that you haven't read what Harper wrote about the niche of the new conservative party in his unite the right campaign. He explicitly stated that the new conservative coalition would be a coalition of social conservatives. That constituency cannot be represented in a minority situation because it would provide the 'ballot question' after opposition parties decided that this was the perfect time to vote non-confidence in the government. Decentralization is the only part of the social conservative agenda that Harper can pitch right now. The purpose of decentralization is to eliminate what conservatives call 'social engineering' so that it can be replaced with local values. That is primarily only an issue in Alberta (where Klein proposed using the notwithstanding clause to block SSM until Alberta was found nationally to be earning its socially backwards stereotype and he had to back off).
  92. Stephen Harper's Ignorant Tories from Canada writes: CONs are liars and thieves. They made an unethical and illegal attempt to influence Cadman with financial considerations. That's called corruption.

    They couldn't even wait to get into office before they became corrupt.
  93. Chris R from Ottawa, Canada writes: Six months of questions in the House -- and this is the FIRST time I ever heard Harper actually address the questions at hand.

    If he had just bothered to say this much in the House -- perhaps even once! -- rather than sending his henchmen up to answer for him -- this lawsuit may have been avoided.
  94. rick from river city from Canada writes: bobby dy... what you call decentralization is finally the empowerment of provinces to control their destiny while part of a great country. For provinces who have never had a national voice, and if Ontario and Quebec get their way never will, it is a chance to participate rather than sublimate. Senate Reform has the same goal. Stronger provinces, less reliant on federal largesse and free of federal interference in provincial matters is the future of this country. That is what the Confederation intended.
  95. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Alpha Beta, if you knew just what it costs me as an ordinary Canadian to keep track or keep up with the Harper Party crap, you yourself would donate. Sheer guts is priceless. I stand up here while my family members fight in Afghanistan displaying courage and patriotism, blood, sweat and tears, above and beyond the call of duty than other NATO members suffer, apparently with a liar and cheat as Prime Minister.

    I get nothing but the satisfaction of defending my Canada, unlike you and your paid Death Star compatriots. My contribution to the fight compared to the lives of my family and their friends and our countrymen risk daily, willingly and as one country is paltry. Yet neither they nor I will fail to do what is necessary. Every Canadian does his or her part to the best of their ability.

    No, I do not get paid. I am an ordinary Canadian exercising my right to free speech and fair comment. Deal with it. Like a real Canadian: with truth, honour and courage, if you can.
  96. Conservatives Lie from Canada writes: The plot thickens. If proof of an attempt by Harper to bribe Cadman is now found, Harper will not only be in a heap of political trouble and legal trouble, he will also be guilty of the criminal offense of lying under oath.

    What integrity, after so often lying and now preparing to violate his own law, will Harper have left when he breaks the criminal code, too? The lust for power makes men do strange things indeed....
  97. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: .
    @Bobby Dy: 'He acknowledges that such an offer could have taken place' ...

    QUOTE from this article:

    'Mr Harper also said that the offer of a life insurance policy sounded preposterous to him'
  98. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Chris R, you are absolutely correct. All that he had to do was tell us what happened when he was asked in QP instead of playing games. One has to wonder, however, whether that added time was needed to concoct a credible story. We must remember that, despite the lack of details, the details changed in the first couple of weeks of answering questions on the issue (much as they have now with how Harper justified the need for an election--none of them were legitimate but you float enough and eventually you find one that people will buy).
  99. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: William Godfrey:-- I think you had wine on your mind, in particular the white wine of Cologna Veneta (near Verona). Perfectly understandable.
  100. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: rick from river city. I have lived all of my life in the 'West'. The only people that have ever ranted about how they were left out were the conservatives. They are a minority in number but a majority in seats thanks to how our election system works (first past the post alongside over-representation of rural areas). This was never an issue for the urban moderates. To the contrary, in Alberta, the urban moderates see the loss of federal influence as a threat.
  101. Vern McPherson from writes:
    fart ................
  102. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: This is all about Stephen Harper. Dion wasn't even on Harper's radar when this happened. Red herring. Do not be fooled, Canadians.

    Stephen Harper under oath is the issue here. Much more will be revealed.
  103. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Paul, here is the quote, feel free to verify: 'So I would presume, from what I now know of what he is purported to have told Dona, that he must have concluded himself that these were rogue individuals.' The problem with the prelude to that comment is that Cadman did NOT say what Harper claimed he said. In one interview, claims he dismissed it with the statement 'this was the only offer that I had'. The question posed, however, was did any other party make an offer (MD Live). In a more detailed interview where the focus was on the content of the CPC offer, he states that this (candidacy and related support) was AMONGST what was offered.
  104. rick from river city from Canada writes: Bobby Dy,,, the number of urban moderates in alberta would be the minority as reflected in each provincial election. I move around both cities and have no problem finding those who have felt ignored for decades. When you say just conservatives you are talking the majority. The complaint is accurate. Unlike you I spent half my life in Ontario, the other half in Alberta. I have seen the profile and consideration each of those provinces has at the federal level over the past half century.