Friday, September 12, 2008

Why the Delay Mr. Harper??? Something to Hide???

An Emergency Motion? Kind of the same as this emergency election. What's next? He sues the publisher of the Couillard book to delay its release?

Harper seeks to delay Cadman lawsuit during election campaign
Last Updated: Friday, September 12, 2008 | 4:40 PM ET

The Canadian Press

Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to put off a hearing in his $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party because it is scheduled for the middle of the federal election campaign.

Harper's lawyers filed an emergency motion Friday asking Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland to consider the bid to adjourn the case during the campaign.

The lawyers argue that the election distracts Harper from the details of the suit he filed over an allegation that Conservatives attempted to bribe a sitting MP in 2005.

Harper sued in March 2008 after the Liberal party posted website headlines suggesting the prime minister knew that two senior Conservatives attempted to bribe Independent MP Chuck Cadman before a critical Commons confidence vote in May 2005.

In a book published earlier in 2008, B.C. author Tom Zytaruk quotes Cadman's widow, Dona, as saying her husband told her that Conservatives offered him a $1-million life insurance policy in return for his vote against the Liberals.

Cadman, who had long represented the suburban Vancouver riding of Surrey North, voted with the Liberals and died shortly afterward.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The election is Oct. 14.


Anonymous said...

I'm sure it has something to do with the deposition from Dona Cadman, which basically established that she heard the tape just after the interview (Zytaruk played it for her, and she confirmed that). Her deposition basically confirms the whole tape as fitting her recollection of it.

So, that ruling to allow the tape to be used as evidence would probably sound a bit damning in the middle of a campaign.

Here's hoping the Liberals say, "We have no problem moving forward and we're in an election to (wink)" and the judge says, "Carry on. And by the way the tape can be used. Bye Bye."

Gayle said...

If he is so "distracted, maybe he shoud not have called an election.

poor baby...

patricia said...

Poor Liberals - it would seem that you can't get away from the deplorable scandals from your own time in government.

Adscam has raised its head again. CBC radio is reporting that John Brault is now a police informant and is telling more than when he testified at the Gomery commission.

He is saying that he actually funneled double the cash to the Liberal Party - 2.3 million if I heard right.

Conservative scandals and Liberal scandals.

Want accountability - vote Layton and the NDP!

RuralSandi said...

Vote Layton? Good principled man? Get real.

I remember when he was on Toronto council. And, speaking of NDP - they may not have federal scandals but they sure have had provincial scandals, i.e. O'Learygate, Spudscam, Bingogate..and shall we go on.

Enough of their sanctimony.

Besides, Layton, as one journalist said, has to get out of the Berline wall era.

James Curran said...

From Wiki:

Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing cooperative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income.[17] Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so. In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow.[18] During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing,[19] and later that month, Layton and Chow left the co-op and bought a house in Toronto's Chinatown together with Chow's mother, a move they said.

Jack Layton is not a leader. He took advantage of a system that should have been utilized by, as he would say, "honest, hard-working families".

James Curran said...

Unlike the conservative in and out scandal, not a single Liberal MP was charged in the adscam fiasco.

James Curran said...

Unlike the conservative in and out scandal, not a single Liberal MP was charged in the adscam fiasco.

patricia said...

Only a matter of time James:

BTW - did you read the wiki entry that you posted - the entire point of a coops is that you have mixed income living. The $800 apt was market value at the time and they even paid extra as their income increased. This is not a scandal this was an example of living according to their principles and the media (and clearly liberals) choosing to use their MISunderstanding of the coop movement as an excuse to smear Layton.

James - are you saying that we should have poor people live only with other poor people? That seems to be discrimination to me.

James Curran said...

Mixed living does not mean families with incomes over $100k. Give your head a shake.