The Chuck Cadman Merged Thread

[stegner]

Let us not forget that Dion sued Duceppe for libel himself....

Yes you are right.  But Duceppe is a separatist.  That is my excuse and it's not a very good one.   

 

[PPCLI Guy]

  But Duceppe is a separatist elected representative in the House of Commons, just like Mr Dion

 

[stegner]

But Duceppe is a separatist elected representative in the House of Commons, just like Mr Dion

Indeed

 

[Cheshire]

When will the doe doe Liberals stop digging up garbage that happend years ago, and start talking about relevant, up to date, current issues that affect Canadians?

If the Liberals have not noticed, the Mulroney affair happend years ago. As did this Cadman issue. If you ask me, they are just looking to dig up dirt to sling in the governments eye, and when they falter, just the slightest, the doe doe Liberals will strike down some silly piece of legislation, and call for an election.

I think Liberal tactics are going to backfire, and eventually they will loose the confidence of some of their support. My parents would always vote liberal, and in taking to them over the weekend, they are changing their tune should the next election come about. And there reasoning is the crime bill, and money being spent on the forces. My dad being and ex RCR man.

Liberals, you are losing votes, and the Chuck Cadman non-issue, that you claim to be an issue, is why you will loose votes.

 

[stegner]

Well in fairness when the sponsorship scandal broke it was not exactly recent either.  Should it have not been investigated?

 

[a_majoor]

Other first person accounts of how the CPC operates:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/how-do-tom-flanagan-and-stephe.html

How do Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper negotiate?
By Ezra Levant on March 4, 2008 2:01 AM | Permalink | Comments | Trackback

It's a question that has come up as a result of Cadscam. Do they offer bribes? Here's a column I wrote for today's National Post that describes my experience negotiating with the two men:

What did the Conservative Party's emissaries really say to independent MP Chuck Cadman just hours before he cast a key Parliamentary vote in 2005? A new book alleges that two unidentified Tories offered the ailing MP-- who would die of cancer just two months later -- a million-dollar life insurance policy as a bribe.

Last week, former party chief of staff Tom Flanagan and campaign manager Doug Finley identified themselves as the two men in question, but they categorically denied the book's claim, and disputed other basic facts in the book, including the date of the meeting.

Like the book's author, I wasn't at the meeting, so I don't have first-hand knowledge of what really went on. But I do know a little bit about how the Conservative Party handles political problems like that -- and how Tom Flanagan and even Stephen Harper himself negotiate.

In February of 2002, I was nominated as the Canadian Alliance candidate for a by-election in Calgary Southwest. In March, however, just weeks before that by-election, Stephen Harper was elected as the party's new leader, and he didn't yet have a seat in Parliament. There were several other ridings across Canada scheduled for a by-election on the same day, but none of them were safe Canadian Alliance ridings like mine was. It soon became clear that for Harper to enter Parliament quickly and with no chance of losing, I would have to drop out as the candidate -- even though I had already started putting up my lawn signs.

Stepping aside would be a painful concession for anyone to make, but it was even more so in my situation. I had started campaigning full-time for the nomination nine months earlier, recruited over 1,000 new supporters and had spent more than $250,000 on my campaign. Giving up a sure-fire entry to Parliament was tough enough; writing off nearly a year's work and a fortune was even tougher.

Unlike Cadman's vote in Parliament, which propped up Paul Martin's wobbly minority government for a few more months, whether or not I stepped aside in Calgary Southwest wouldn't tip the balance in the House of Commons, pass a budget or cause a general election. But in other ways, it was just as important to Harper and his campaign manager at the time, Tom Flanagan.

Back in the spring of 2002, the Canadian Alliance was in a civil war. The party was in disarray, with MPs defecting, staff quitting and insider leaking embarrassing tid-bits to the press on a daily basis. Needless to say, the party was low in the polls. Harper's great appeal to party members was his promise to bring discipline and unity back. Not only did that mean Harper needed a speedy entry into Parliament itself, it also meant he couldn't afford an embarrassing turf-war with a 29-year-old candidate. If Harper was to be the harbinger of party discipline and unity, he couldn't be seen to tolerate my defiance in Calgary Southwest. It was his first test as leader, a test that would set a public precedent for his entire leadership. In that sense, it was even more important than winning Cadman's vote some three years later.

It so happens that in university, I had studied under Flanagan, as had my campaign manager. So as it became clear that a conflict over Calgary Southwest was coming, we put out feelers to Flanagan to see what consideration might be offered should I step aside. Would my nomination expenses be covered? Would I receive a paid position with the party? Would my personal debts be paid? Such crass inquiries were all but ignored by Flanagan, even as an embarrassing clash between us loomed in the media. In purely pragmatic terms, Flanagan had every incentive to give me an offer --even an offer he didn't intend to keep -- just to make Harper's entry smoother. But he didn't.

As the by-election drew nearer, and the media's delight at our dilemma grew, I received a personal phone call from Harper himself. He was blunt: For the good of the party, I needed to step aside for him.

I immediately asked: "What would be the reward if I step aside? What would be the punishment if I don't?" I expected that he might offer some basic indemnity for the money I had sunk into the campaign to date, or some token position with the party in recognition for the sacrifice he was asking me to make.

"If you step aside, my esteem for you will rise," he told me. "If you don't, my esteem for you will fall." That's it: no money, no job offers, just his respect and friendship.

I asked him to clarify: Would he still sign my nomination papers as the party's candidate if I chose to stay on in defiance of his request? Or would he exercise his right under the Elections Act to hand-pick the candidate in the riding? Again, to my surprise, Harper said he would sign my papers. In the tunnel vision that comes from nine months of having a single goal, I told him that I would continue as the candidate, and simply work twice as hard as an MP to earn back his lost esteem for me. I hung up the phone, and felt pretty good about myself.

But much of the Canadian Alliance didn't feel good about my decision; it was seen as more bickering in an undisciplined party, and a bad start for the new leader. So after two days of receiving phone calls and e-mails asking me to reconsider, I stepped aside for Harper.

There are plenty of red flags attached to the Cadman story, from Paul Martin's strange involvement with the book, to the near-impossibility of buying life insurance for a dying man, to the Cadman family's reaction to the book's allegations. I can't speak authoritatively to any of those questions.

But I can speak to how Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper negotiate political problems. From personal experience, offering bribes just isn't how they operate.

 

[sgf]

Don Martin had this interesting article in todays National Post


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=350818

OTTAWA -Prime Minister, answer the damned question.

Precisely what "financial considerations" were you talking about in admitting knowledge of a Conservative party approach to Independent MP Chuck Cadman prior to the 2005 vote to topple the Liberals?

For three Question Periods in a row, the Conservatives have pretended the Stephen Harper tape -- in which he mentions the offer -- doesn't exist as a three-year-old admission of questionable conduct screaming out for a cur-rent-reality clarification.

The time has come to stop the fudging, the whisper campaigns, the icy-eyed warnings, the over-the-top libel lawsuit and the arm-twisted gushy clarifications from Mr. Cadman's widow, Dona, and cough up the only answer that matters. If Stephen Harper can deliver a clear, concise, unambiguous statement on what Mr. Cadman was offered on the party leader's behalf, and it's as innocent as his party says, this raging parliamentary madness settles down to a kerfuffle.

But if Mr. Harper and his scripted sidekicks keep up their Oz-like pay-no-attention-to-that-tape behaviour, the vultures will circle lower, the stain on his record will spread and the denials of ethical or even legal transgressions will ring increasingly hollow.

In lieu of a clarification, the Conservatives yesterday were waving around Mrs. Cadman's sudden insistence that Mr. Harper did not know about an alleged million-dollar life insurance inducement.

"I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes," she says. If that line wasn't written by a PMO or Conservative party staffer, I'll eat my laptop. But it still doesn't overlook the fact that a tape of the future prime minister shows he knew that two of his closest advisors were negotiating a monetary deal with Mr. Cadman. An explanation is desperately required.

Yet with every controversial day's passing, it becomes harder for the Prime Minister to simply shrug off those "financial considerations" as an innocent repayable loan to his riding association or a pension plan top up in exchange for Mr. Cadman's vote.

Lost in the shouted back-and-forth war of words over which interview to believe -- Mr. Cadman's dying-days denial that he was made an offer, versus his family's oft-repeated statement that he'd been dangled a million-dollar life insurance policy for his vote -- is the question of whose words matter the most.

Mr. Cadman is not on trial here. As anMPjust two months from the hereafter, he alone bears witness to the million-dollar version of events, which, frankly, may have other interpretations. His widow, Dona, who is seeking to honour Mr. Cadman's memory by running for the Conservatives herself, is not on trial either. She is merely repeating, at considerable risk to her political future, her soulmate's recollection of a traumatic encounter.

The person on trial is the person on tape admitting that "individuals" representing the Conservative Party of Canada were in last-ditch discussions to procure Mr. Cadman's pivotal vote at a critical time for a teetering Liberal government.

Instead of clearing that up, Mr. Harper has now unleashed lawyers to muffle the noise with a defamation action against the Liberals for alleging on their Web site that he'd known about a Cadman bribe. If the Prime Minister was trying to turtle the Liberals back inside their political shells, he apparently misjudged Stephane Dion.

Looking more like an actual Official Opposition leader than at any time since his unexpected leadership victory in late 2006, a defiant Mr. Dion opened his question yesterday by throwing the bribe accusation back at the Prime Minister.

Stripped of parliamentary privilege protection outside the Commons, Mr. Dion hesitated several times before he decided that playing coy was pointless. "It is certainly an offer with financial considerations and according to law, it's a bribe," he said. Cue the lawyers and kick-start the billable hours.

But Mr. Harper is wrong to warn that the Liberals are making a grievous political error in slandering or sliming his name beyond the protective walls of parliamentary privilege. Until the Prime Minister puts his own recorded words in a proper ethical and legal context, he's the one inflicting damage to his own reputation.

dmartin@nationalpost.com

 

[Old Ranger]

I think Liberal tactics are going to backfire, and eventually they will loose the confidence of some of their support.

I really hope so in Ontario, maybe some of you Westerners could take up residence in Ontario at least for the next vote.
We would probably need to host a really big BBQ/3 gun match for the duration ;D

 

[JBG]

Given the penchant of the Mop & Pail, and other MSM, to sling dirt, I'll wait to hear both sides before making any considerations. We all know how selective they can make their sound bites.

And how does one insure the life of a terminally ill cancer patient weeks before death? The benefits of sustaining th egovernment and thus dieing if office were themselves immense.

Who bribed who?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And how does one insure the life of a terminally ill cancer patient weeks before death? The benefits of sustaining th egovernment and thus dieing if office were themselves immense.

Who bribed who?

I hope you write your law briefs better than that question. I still don't understand it, but I think I get the gist.

If you'd bothered to read the whole thread, you'd find I asked the same question, about purchasing a policy, once more info became available.

 

[JBG]

I hope you write your law briefs better than that question. I still don't understand it, but I think I get the gist.

If you'd bothered to read the whole thread, you'd find I asked the same question, about purchasing a policy, once more info became available.

Sorry for the typos. I was tired. Long day's work.

 

[a_majoor]

Is the Cadman affair really even a scandal? Recent history would seem otherwise (assuming the allegations are true)

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=353565

MPs have been bought before and for lesser cause

Don Martin, National Post  Published: Wednesday, March 05, 2008

OTTAWA -Buying an MP is not cheap, but it's done with surprisingly guilt-free ease and recent regularity.

When one party wants to deliver a painful partisan whack on an opponent or salvage a pivotal vote to keep a government alive, it need only mix the correct dose of political power with the right amount of compensation and, presto, you land an MP -- body, soul, riding seat and standing vote.

That's why there's a certain preachy hypocrisy to Liberals trashing Conservatives over the lingering million-dollar question in the Chuck Cadman saga.

Consider the top vote-buying attempts of the past five years -- some of them successful, others, not so much.

Belinda Stronach The billionaire Aurora MP staged the vote sale of the decade with her blockbuster switch from a Conservative leadership hopeful to Liberal Cabinet minister just two days before Paul Martin's Liberal government was due for a May, 2005, toppling. Former Ontario premier David Peterson negotiated a clover landing in Cabinet as the price for Ms. Stronach's defection.

Cost of her vote: $50,000 for two-thirds of a year as a minister (although, if it makes you feel better, Ms. Stronach does donate her MP pay-cheques to charity). (Interpolation: Control of a ministry with @ $4 billion in spending power as well)

Value: She hurt the fledgling Conservative party's bid for a more moderate image, but in preserving the government, she may have inadvertently delayed the election until the Conservatives enjoyed the winning conditions to defeat the Liberals.

Germant Grewal A Liberal minister and Paul Martin aide were dispatched to wrangle a price for his defection as insurance on a squeaker budget vote. A Cabinet gig for him and a Senate seat for his wife were demanded before talks fell apart.

Cost: It's hard to put a price on the "nice comfy fur" Mr. Grewal was promised to smooth his landing with the Liberals. An eight-month Cabinet post would have cost $50,000, but that spousal Senate seat until her retirement at age 75 would have hit us for $3.2-million.

Value: A big fat ugly negative. If it was his idea of entrapment, Mr. Grewal's secret tape recordings revealed the Liberals were on a desperate vote-buying binge. If it was a genuine defection negotiation, same thing.

Scott Brison His claim to fame was being the first openly gay MP to eventually enter into a same-sex marriage. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But Brison felt like a lousy fit with the reunited Conservatives and sent out defection vibes in December, 2003. The Liberals opened their eager arms with a job offer as Paul Martin's parliamentary sidekick.

Cost: $150,000 (six months as parliamentary secretary, two years as Public Works Minister).

Value: By staging his defection just days after the Conservatives reunited, Mr. Brison served as a Liberal poster boy to paint the new party as intolerant. Besides, he's fun to have around a caucus meeting.

David Emerson His Liberal party couldn't beat the Conservatives, so two weeks after the 2006 election he decided to join them. Mr. Emerson was aggressively wooed by Stephen Harper, whose new government had been denied a Vancouver MP and decided to buy one with a Cabinet job.

Cost: $145,000 in Cabinet pay, which still rises by $6,000 a month.

Value: It gave the new government the representation it craved, but hurt its bid for a clean credibility slate. Mr. Emerson is considered unlikely to run again or, if he does, is not expected to win re-election.

Wajid Khan An obscure Toronto Liberal MP, he was suddenly and unexpectedly elevated slightly above invisibility when recruited as Mr. Harper's special advisor on the Middle East. The Liberals were unimpressed and demanded he quit. He did quit -- the party -- to become a Conservative.

Cost: $13,000 for a questionable Middle East fact-finding trip and an undisclosed tab for a second tour of the region.

Value for money: Lousy. His reports have never been made public, he refused to talk about his mission to a parliamentary committee and he has yet to deliver any substance on Middle East debates in the Commons.

David Kilgour The Conservative-turned-Liberal-turned-Independent MP was a target for Paul Martin as his May, 2005, showdown approached. The price for his loyalty was 500 Canadian soldiers being sent to Darfur to stop the genocidal warfare.

Cost: Martin's $170-million pledge of military and humanitarian relief in Sudan did not impress Mr. Kilgour. Nor did the then-prime minister's offer to send 100 technical workers to the area.

Value: Zero. Mr. Kilgour ultimately refused to support the government and retired six months later, having arguably rejected the highest price for an MP's vote in Canadian history.

Just a little side note; the Liberal party is already pleading for Parliament (i.e. you and I) to pick up the tab for the defamation suit filed against them by Prime Minister Harper. A few thoughts about responsibility and paying for the consequences of your own actions comes to my mind...............

 

[sgf]

Well actually if this libel suit goes ahead, the taxpaper will be paying for both according to this article

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1041907.html

By TIM NAUMETZ The Canadian Press
Wed. Mar 5 - 6:06 AM

OTTAWA — Taxpayers may be on the hook for over $1 million in legal fees if Prime Minister Stephen Harper forges ahead with his threat to sue Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and two other Liberals for libel.

A Liberal official said Tuesday the official Opposition is looking into the possibility of asking the House of Commons to pay legal fees for the three MPs, as the House has done in the past for a range of legal battles, including libel cases.

The Conservative party will be paying Harper’s legal fees, spokesman Ryan Sparrow said. But even then, considering that federal parties are now heavily funded by taxpayers through quarterly allowances, the public arguably foots a substantial part of the cost.

Harper served a libel notice this week against Dion, deputy leader Michael Ignatieff and House leader Ralph Goodale. The prime minister’s concerns centre on allegations the Liberal party posted about his role in Conservative attempts to convince the late Independent MP Chuck Cadman to vote down the Liberal minority government in May 2005.

Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff said the party can rightfully ask the Commons to pay legal fees for the three MPs, partly to protect all parliamentarians from intimidation through costly law suits.

"I believe members of Parliament from all parties should be protected from frivolous lawsuits," he said. "Otherwise, how are we going to do our jobs?"

Liberal Derek Lee, a Toronto MP and lawyer who said he’d prefer a negotiated resolution, predicted the costs would soar if the high-profile libel battle goes to court.

"The lawyers the various parties would be retaining would be charging from $250 to $500 an hour," said Lee. "It doesn’t take long, with three or four parties, you’re very quickly going to get to $1 million."

Green party Leader Elizabeth May agreed the House should pay the Liberal legal bills, saying Harper has set a dangerous precedent by threatening to sue the MPs for statements their party made about the Cadman controversy.

"It’s an appalling and dangerous precedent to have the prime minister sue other members of the House," she said.

The Commons board of internal economy has paid legal fees for 12 unidentified MPs since April 2006, records of its minutes show. In each case, the board agreed to pay the legal costs "subject to the matter being resolved in the member’s favour."

No other details, including names of the MPs or the amounts involved, are disclosed when the board agrees to pay the legal fees.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As much as I think Derek Lee is wise to prefer a negotiated settlement, I do not see much alternative to a lawsuit:

• The Liberal website clearly accuses Prime Minister Harper of a crime, he must sue because:

o If he is innocent he cannot, in conscience, allow the defamation to continue unchallenged; but

o If he is guilty, well, ”the best defence is a good offence;” and

• The Liberals must press on because:

o If they have any useful evidence then they will win a major political victory and do irreparable damage to Harper; but

o Even if that have nothing but smoke and mirrors they don’t want to be seen to have backed away from Harper yet again.

 

[sgf]

Dona Cadman said that Harper looked her in the eye and she knew that he was telling her the truth. My thoughts are, why cant Harper look Canadians and tell them what went on instead of all this dilly dalling around.  Of course he has a right to sue for libel but whats wrong with just a simple explanation?

The following is an expert from an article on CTV and are some questions that would solve a lot of problems.

Repeated appeals to the Prime Minister's Office since the Chuck Cadman affair surfaced have failed to yield direct answers to the following questions:

1. Did anyone from the Conservative party, or connected to the Tories, offer Cadman a $1-million life insurance policy?

Refused to directly answer the question. Tory MP James Moore has repeatedly said officials only offered to take Cadman back into the party.
2. What did Stephen Harper mean when he said in a 2005 interview that "an offer" that included "financial considerations" was made to Cadman?

Conservative party spokesman Ryan Sparrow said Monday the offer Cadman mentioned in a TV interview was a repayable loan to the local riding association.
3. If Tory officials Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley offered a repayable loan, what was the amount and what were the terms of repayment?

No answer.
4. Why did the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservatives first deny an offer had been made to Cadman, only to later say a repayable loan was offered?

No answer.
5. Why didn't Harper reveal last week that he told Dona Cadman more than two years ago that he didn't know about the alleged life-insurance offer?

No answer.
6. What motivation would Dona Cadman, a Tory candidate in her husband's former riding, have to fabricate a story about the life-insurance offer?

No answer.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080304/cadman_questions_080304/20080304?hub=QPeriod

These arent difficult questions, and if answered would save the taxpapers a lot of money and time.

 

[Slim]

"Frivolous law suites..."

Sometimes Canadian politicians make me sick.

 

[Old Sweat]

The Elections Act restricts the amount that a candidate may spend during an election campaign according to this refererence: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/participation/guides/run_office/federal/

The candidate is responsible for funding his or her campaign, however some of it is reimbursable from Elections Canada. It seems to me that the offer might, say again, might have been to to cover his election expenses up to a ceiling. Note that the loan was said to be to the local riding association. The association could then loan the money to his campaign.

Note that there are strict limits on contributions.

I am not an expert in election financing and political fund raising. Question - why has someone on either side or in the media not brought spending limits into the argument?

 

[ModlrMike]

"I believe members of Parliament from all parties should be protected from frivolous lawsuits," he said. "Otherwise, how are we going to do our jobs?"

If you accuse somebody of a crime, they have both a right and an obligation to defend their character. I would hardly call that frivolous. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defamed. In which case, the Liberal Party and Mr Dion et al should have to fund the libel suit out of their own pockets. This is not a case where the house needs to protect the good name of the members involved. If anything, the house could pay for Mr Harper as the injured party. It is not the responsibiltiy of the taxpayer to pry Mr Dion's foot from his mouth, or his head from some other part of his anatomy.

 

[Old Sweat]

The story speculates that Parliament may fund the defence for the three MPs. However I cannot see the other parties voting to authorize this. Given the party's financial situation which is not rosey, it seems to me that the other parties would welcome a long, costly trial that consumes a healthy chunk of the Liberals' bank account.

 

[sgf]

If you accuse somebody of a crime, they have both a right and an obligation to defend their character. I would hardly call that frivolous. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defamed. In which case, the Liberal Party and Mr Dion et al should have to fund the libel suit out of their own pockets. This is not a case where the house needs to protect the good name of the members involved. If anything, the house could pay for Mr Harper as the injured party. It is not the responsibiltiy of the taxpayer to pry Mr Dion's foot from his mouth, or his head from some other part of his anatomy.

According to the news piece, its not only the Liberals that would have their lawyers funded by the taxpapers

The Conservative party will be paying Harper’s legal fees, spokesman Ryan Sparrow said. But even then, considering that federal parties are now heavily funded by taxpayers through quarterly allowances, the public arguably foots a substantial part of the cost.

If this libel case proceeds, seems that once again it will be costing the taxpayer a lot of money. It would be so simple and so cheaper for Harper just to explain what happened