News   Jul 10, 2024
U of T's Rotman Commerce Design by Danish Architects 3XN Unveiled
 1K     0 
News   Jul 10, 2024
News Roundup for July 10, 2024
 526     0 
News   Jul 10, 2024
Slice of Town
 752     0 

Harper Involved in Possible Bribery Scandal

I know people who've spent a lot of time with Harper and know him reasonably well. They all say that his entire sense of humour consists of bashing Liberals and "socialists." He's essentially a Nixonian figure, absolutely consumed with hatred and resentment for his "enemies." He absolutely believes that there is a vast Liberal/liberal conspiracy in Canada that is keeping the country, and people like him, down. It causes him to go to completely unreasonable measures, like accusing his opponent of supporting child pornography or trying to bribe an MP to change his vote, just to win a minor battle.
 
Hydrogen said:
AoD, sometimes spin takes time to spin.
Click to expand...

Kay's spin from NP...

Jonathan Kay: The Cadman affair will come to nothing. But in the meantime, lots of fire and brimstone ...
Posted: March 01, 2008, 9:49 PM by 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.

In any case, I've gotten an interesting response from my column on the subject in today's National Post. Usually, I don't get a ton of emails responding to my occassional Saturday columns: Most readers aren't at the office in front of their computers on weekends, so there is a lot less email traffic. But this one was an exception. Readers ran to their computers and told me what they thought. I'll (anonymously) except some of the reponses below. I'd say they ran at least 2-to-1 against me. (My favourite is the guy who calls me a "freaking nimrod" -- and cc-d a bunch of his pals.)

As interesting aspect of the feedback was how passionately some people want to believe the worst of Stephen Harper and the Tories. As with all political scandals (or would-be scandals), partisans treat it as a morality play: The critics quoted below loudly insist it is a revealing microcosm of the "true" evil nature of their Harperite enemies. They treasure the fact that the evil has (in their view) been unmasked -- and any attempt (e.g. mine) to cast doubt on it is treated with hysterical contempt.

One more thing: A surprising number of folks felt compelled to drag in Conrad Black and Brian Mulroney into their rebuttals. Schadenfreude galore at the comeuppance of the rich, famous and powerful -- very Canadian.
 
Forget who said what: The Cadman scandal is bogus
The idea that a man like Tom Flanagan would risk jail for such a stunt is insane

Jonathan Kay
National Post

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Before anyone gives any credence to the idea that the federal Conservatives offered Chuck Cadman $1-million to help bring down Paul Martin's government in 2005, please go to the CBC Website and listen to Thursday's As It Happens interview with Tom Zytaruk, the author of the new book from which the accusation springs.

In the interview, the B.C. journalist -- who seemed oddly clueless about many of the basic questions put to him -- admits he had no other basis for his claim than the say-so of Cadman's widow, Dona. That, in itself, is not fatal to the allegation: This would hardly be the first scandal story to be single-sourced. (And in any case, Cadman's daughter now has come forward to back up her mother's claim.) But listen on, and it becomes clear that Zytaruk was also entirely in the dark about the most basic details of the alleged offer to Cadman -- including the identities of the Conservatives who allegedly made it.

We have since learned that the two men who were in contact with Cadman were Harper confidantes Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan. This fact tells us all we need to know.

Flanagan is a political science professor whose government resume includes the following entries: "former director of research for the Reform Party 1991-92; chief of staff in the office of the leader of the opposition, 2002-03; manager of the national campaign of the Conservative party, 2004." His writing credits include publications with names such as Government and Politics, Strengthening Canadian Democracy and Canada's Three Constitutions. Does this veteran expert in governance, politics and the workings of Ottawa sound like he'd be stupid and/or reckless enough to make a bald-faced million-dollar bribe to an MP known for iron-willed integrity?

And another question: Does Flanagan sound like the sort of guy who would risk going to jail -- for up to five years -- for committing such an act? Section 121 of the Criminal Code makes it a crime to, among other things, offer "a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation ? in connection with ? the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office." Flanagan is a sophisticated inside player who knows the rules. The idea that he would personally blunder into a proposed quid-pro-quo with Cadman in a way that not only disgraced his party, but also turned him into a jailbird, is insane.

And all this sits on top of a second slam-dunk reason to reject the allegations: As my colleagues Colby Cosh and Don Martin have noted, the idea of any insurance company providing a $1-million policy to a person dying of cancer makes no sense -- unless the premium paid were $1-million-plus upfront.

Might the Conservatives, in a Hollywood scenario concocted in someone's fevered Ottawa imagination, have gone to Cadman's insurer with a shoebox full of C-notes and ponied up $1-million? I would put the odds against at ? well, a million to one. Yes, money does change hands in Canadian politics. You sometimes see five-figure sums paid out (legally) when a party wants to, say, divest itself of an inconvenient candidate who has campaign debts to pay off. This seems in the ballpark of what Stephen Harper described vaguely, on Zytaruk's tape, as funds "to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election." But seven figures in a bald-faced illegal bribe? Doesn't compute.

jkay@nationalpost.com
 
Jonathan Kay is assuming that just because someone is capable of logical thinking means that the person is incapable of committing illogical acts. It's analagous like saying someone who's reasonably rich can't possibly steal. Pretty weak argument, if you ask me.

Another point - the implausibility of a one million dollar life insurance plan in its' execution phase has nothing to do with the concept, vis-a-vis bribery. It's the latter that we're talking about - that such an option, as impossible in execution as it maybe, is offered as enticement by officials of a party. That's what's illegal and possible.

AoD
 
LOL

What happened to this squeaky clean guy who could never be corrupt? Turns out he was dealing before he ever became PM. LOL

Ya know, on the scale of generally accepted level of corruption, this may not be the most expensive type of corruption, but its one of the most unethical types.

Harper is hilarious. In one voice he was bashing the Liberals for spending a few million in the sponsorship scandal (so far as I know no dead people were involved in that) while with another voice he was secretly preying on a dying man for votes to bring the government down for the corruption he was so "against."

HA.
 
Who do you trust? Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Liberal Leader Stephane Dion? In fact, of all the people in Dion’s caucus, is there anyone you feel you can trust? Who do you trust to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No innuendo. No spin. No allegations. When even Chuck Cadman’s widow says the PM knew nothing of the so-called bribe, why do the Liberals keep up their slanderous behaviour?

Well, I trust Stephen Harper. This is an honest man to a fault. And, the hate the federal Liberals have for this man is now palpable.

What I cannot understand is the fact that this information about what Chuck Cadman was or was not offered is not new. Is this simply how the Liberals want to change the subject from their abysmal record in this parliament, the sponsorship scandal and the fact that the Shawinigate matter is now back in the news?

And most puzzling of all? If former PM Martin wrote the forward to the book, how is it that the allegations are only coming to light now — just as the book is about to be published?

Nik Nanos says the PM has to do something concrete and fast. So, I am so very glad the PM has made notice to sue them all.


Dona Cadman's full statement
TheStar.com - Special - Dona Cadman's full statement

March 03, 2008

Personal Statement by Dona Cadman

I'm a little bit surprised at the level of reaction to the disclosures in Tom Zytaruk's book and I guess that's probably because it was put to rest in my mind, when I discussed the matter with Stephen Harper, 2 ½ years ago. At that time, I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million dollar insurance policy offer, that upset Chuck so much.

He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes. He said, yes he'd had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he'd told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck.

From that point forward.... I didn't regard it as a "Party" initiative, but rather; the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals.... whose identity, Chuck never revealed to me.

It all comes back to my conversation with the Prime Minister.... 2 ½ years ago. I want to be perfectly clear in that regard. Chuck liked, respected and trusted Stephen Harper. I like, respect and trust Stephen Harper. If I didn't believe in my heart, that he was telling me the truth.... I wouldn't be running as the Conservative Candidate for Surrey North.

Dona Cadman
 
^^^
I guess this is the point where this thread merges with the other discussion on secular humanism: it all comes down to what we choose to believe in the absence of irrefutable evidence.
 
This entire "scandal" has struck me as a tempest in a teacup. It's pretty hard to believe that any insurance company would issue a policy for $1 million on the life of a man who was widely known to have only a few months to live. The allegation had a ring of untruth right from the beginning. And Dona Cadman's statement, although it arrives a bit on the late side, will probably deflate whatever might be left of this.

Much as I might have a problem with Harper's overly vindictive personality, I don't actually think that he's a stupid man. I can't believe that he'd throw everything away on a stupid offer to one MP, especially at a time when, if an election actually had been called, it would not have been assured by any stretch that Harper would have won.

I'll be surprised if this thing doesn't die out within the next couple of days.
 
billonlogan said:
Well, I trust Stephen Harper. This is an honest man to a fault.
Click to expand...

Why? Just because you feel you can trust him? How are you qualified to say this is an honest man to a fault?

Why is Dona exempt from any bias? Everyone has a bias.
 
Observer Walt said:
Much as I might have a problem with Harper's overly vindictive personality, I don't actually think that he's a stupid man. I can't believe that he'd throw everything away on a stupid offer to one MP, especially at a time when, if an election actually had been called, it would not have been assured by any stretch that Harper would have won.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't believe he is stupid enough to directly sanction or encourage the act - but I think it's pretty clear from the tape that he has knowledge of, and stood by while the enticement occured. A lesser guilt, indeed, but it's certainly not an ethically neutral act. A lawful leader would have said - yes, I know about it and the moment I did, I put an immediate end to this illegal nonsense. It is as bad, if not worse than the Liberal leadership with regards to their knowledge of the Sponsorship Scandal - given it implies the very key of parliamentary democracy - the vote of an MP - can be costed and bought off with the knowledge of the party leader without the slighest hesitation on the ethics of any such act.

re: Dona Cadman

Quite frankly I think she is the weakest link either way in this case - especially considering her current role in the Conservative nomination process.

AoD
 
Observer Walt said:
I'll be surprised if this thing doesn't die out within the next couple of days.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, not when people are being sued. But why not sue Mrs. Cadman, or the journalist or the publishers? What I don't get is why individual Liberals are being sued when they have, essentially, repeated allegations made by Mrs. Cadman. Why isn't the Tory party suing the people who made the allegations first -- her, the journalist, the publisher?

Are the allegations only slanderous if they come from the Opposition? I don't get it.
 
billonlogan said:
Who do you trust? Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Liberal Leader Stephane Dion? In fact, of all the people in Dion’s caucus, is there anyone you feel you can trust? Who do you trust to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No innuendo. No spin. No allegations. When even Chuck Cadman’s widow says the PM knew nothing of the so-called bribe, why do the Liberals keep up their slanderous behaviour?
Click to expand...


I trust that Steve Harper will do whatever it takes to propel his narrow socially conservative agenda forward. I trust that he will use all the political tools, such as innuendo and spin, to push his version of what he deems to be the right way for all Canadians to live. I trust that he will make sure that those who oppose him or the agenda that his party stands for will be made to pay one way or another.

So yeah, I guess I can trust Steve.

And oh pooh pooh for the poor Conservatives and their hurt feelings. I suppose they forgot about the supposed "HRDC billion dollar boondoggle" of days gone by. Talk about hyperbole and false accusations. They have yet to be outclassed in that department.
 
Hydrogen:

It's remarkable how that HRDC scandal was still considered to be an example of government waste by so many even now, when in fact it has been throughly discredited.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top