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

It's amazing how they hold up Dona Cadman as some kind of proof, when she divulged the information in the first place and, as a Tory candidate, has been forced to retract it by the party. That, and Harper admitting on tape that he knew that "official representatives of the Conservative Party" were offering Cadman financial compensation to change his vote. I mean, that's clear cut conspiracy, and the media would be howling for criminal charges if Harper were a Liberal PM. Can you imagine if they had Chretien on tape, talking about how the perpetrators of the sponsorship scandal were official representatives of the Liberal Party, and that he let them do it while saying that it probably wouldn't work?

It's amazing the contortions Tories can go through to prove that allegations are somehow illegitimate when they're about them, but horrific and vitally important when they're about anybody else. It's easy when you operate from the premise that Tories are always moral and Liberals are always immoral.

I was really sad that the CBC, of all places, stooped to introducing their item on the scandal by saying it happened "years ago." Yeah, two and a half years ago. We hear that every time the Mulroney scandal is mentioned. How many times did you hear that about Sponsorship? I guess the CBC people are afraid for their jobs, and I can't blame them.
 
unimaginative2 said:
It's amazing how they hold up Dona Cadman as some kind of proof, when she divulged the information in the first place and, as a Tory candidate, has been forced to retract it by the party. That, and Harper admitting on tape that he knew that "official representatives of the Conservative Party" were offering Cadman financial compensation to change his vote. I mean, that's clear cut conspiracy, and the media would be howling for criminal charges if Harper were a Liberal PM. Can you imagine if they had Chretien on tape, talking about how the perpetrators of the sponsorship scandal were official representatives of the Liberal Party, and that he let them do it while saying that it probably wouldn't work?

It's amazing the contortions Tories can go through to prove that allegations are somehow illegitimate when they're about them, but horrific and vitally important when they're about anybody else. It's easy when you operate from the premise that Tories are always moral and Liberals are always immoral.

I was really sad that the CBC, of all places, stooped to introducing their item on the scandal by saying it happened "years ago." Yeah, two and a half years ago. We hear that every time the Mulroney scandal is mentioned. How many times did you hear that about Sponsorship? I guess the CBC people are afraid for their jobs, and I can't blame them.
Click to expand...

The question I ask is whats happening to the Canadian media?

Why is Stephen Harper's government almost getting a pass at this juncture for something that is ethically more wrong than the sponsorship scandal?

To me a buyout of an insurance policy to bring down a government for a dying MP is far more unethical than any other type of corruption recently seen in Canadian politics.

The Canadian media better hound Harper on this and make it an issue. We can't just go on the words of someone looking into Harper's eyes and "knowing" he tells the truth when their own convoluded story conflicts itself.

We're talking about corruption to bring down a government using a dying man who had a key vote. This is serious enough for the media to keep pushing for more answers and to make it known what is going on. Stephen Harper isn't honest. Voters deserve to remember this as a real issue if an election is called this year or next year.
 
From the Post:

Time for an answer, Mr. Harper
PM is the one inflicting damage to his reputation

Don Martin, National Post
Published: Tuesday, March 04, 2008

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

AoD
 
The other question is why did the Liberals, who apparently have known about this for a year, sit on this for so long? Seems there's a little something unethical about that too. It's one thing to hold off making public a "scandal" until there's an election campaign, but it's an entirely different matter if it's something that might be criminal.
 
Who said the Liberals knew about this? The only people who seem to have known are the Cadman family and that author. That's an interesting new angle of Tory smear: You're unethical because you waited to tell people about our unethical behaviour.
 
The author of the book says he provided Paul Martin a copy of the manuscript for review in February, 2007. One year is a very long time for a sitting MP and former prime minister to sit on something like this. Isn't there an obligation to report crime -- and that's what the Liberal party is focusing on, that this was a criminal act. Well, my question is, if it was a crime a year ago and the former prime minister knew about it, why was it kept secret for so long? Wouldn't he be obligated to report it immediately?

It's a legitimate question that should be allowed to be posed without somebody being accused of engaging in Tory smear.

VANCOUVER SUN, Feb. 28, 2008

Paul Martin received early copy of Cadman manuscript, author says

METRO VANCOUVER - The author of a controversial yet-to-be published book chronicling the life of the late Surrey MP Chuck Cadman confirmed Thursday that Paul Martin was among those who were sent an early copy of the manuscript.

Tom Zytaruk, a journalist in Surrey, said he provided a copy to the former Liberal Prime Minister for review following its completion in February of 2007.

But Zytaruk said he couldn't say whether Martin was the source of a leaked excerpt which quotes Cadman's widow, Dona Cadman, saying that Conservative Party officials offered her dying husband a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote to bring down the Liberal government in May of 2005?

"Your guess is as good as mine," said Zytaruk, who has been fielding calls from journalists from around Canada virtually non-stop since the politically heated passage was leaked to media Tuesday afternoon, the same day the federal Liberals were taking significant heat for their weak reaction to the Conservative budget.

Martin wrote the foreward for the book, Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, which is due to be published by Harbour Publishing March 17.

Publisher Howard White said the leak didn't come from his office, adding the excerpts he's seen quoted in the media come from an older version of the manuscript.

"It must have been from one of the reviewers that the author had contacted," he said.

White said Zytaruk sent versions of the manuscript to a few friends, as well as Paul Martin.

"I think, possibly, [the author] didn't realize the new value quite fully," he said.

White said he was also caught offguard by the media attention generated by the book in the past 24 hours.

"I knew that it had news value, but I didn't know how much. Our intention was to keep it under wraps until the book was published and then do a press conference," he said.

Zytaruk said he knew the information told to him by Dona Cadman about the alleged Conservative offer was a good story, but he insists the MP's reaction should be considered equally as interesting.

"A man with advanced cancer had been offered this, right? And he said no. I think no matter what kind of money, or whatever enticement, someone put in front of him, Chuck was a fellow who couldn't be bought."
 
Not to sound like a broken record, but after the experience the Canadian media gave everyone on sponsorship scandal, the people of Canada deserve to hear no less about the buyout of a terminally ill MP to bring down a government from now until the next election.

If the Canadian media don't maintain this as an issue (which it clearly is) until another election is called, the media is officially biased in favor of the Conservative party.

The media can't speak sponsorship for several years into the last election in January 2006 and NOT follow this into the next election without showing a bias toward the Conservative party.

The RCMP released a hype-based "scandal" not even a month before the last election against the Liberals, and that was biased coverage if there ever was a bias against Liberals, and I'll be very frustrated if the media don't appropriately investigate this and reveal it into the next election.
 
heckles said:
Not to sound like a broken record, but after the experience the Canadian media gave everyone on sponsorship scandal, the people of Canada deserve to hear no less about the buyout of a terminally ill MP to bring down a government from now until the next election.

If the Canadian media don't maintain this as an issue (which it clearly is) until another election is called, the media is officially biased in favor of the Conservative party.

The media can't speak sponsorship for several years into the last election in January 2006 and NOT follow this into the next election without showing a bias toward the Conservative party.

The RCMP released a hype-based "scandal" not even a month before the last election against the Liberals, and that was biased coverage if there ever was a bias against Liberals, and I'll be very frustrated if the media don't appropriately investigate this and reveal it into the next election.
Click to expand...

I wonder how accurate Herbert is when she claims Libs were close to mutiny in Quebec. If they think Cadman issue is suddenly going to turn Dion into some towering giant who conquers all before him than they are not very clever. If Quebec wing was close to revolt, and not just blowing smoke, than Dion has major problems because Cadman is going to blow over soon enough and we will be back to focusing on Dion and what a clown he is. Chuck Cadman’s legacy may be brought to disrepute if the ethics committee changes their pursuit of Mulroney to investigate this new improved one. I understand how this might be news, but I don’t like it for this reason. Although I empathize with all Ms. Cadman has gone through with the death of her son and her fine husband, I feel ‘uglying’ this up politically besmirches Chuck Cadman’s memory. Please understand me, politics at any time is naturally divisive-where else is 51% the highest grade you need achieve? Chuck Cadman’s performance was 110% Jeff Healey smooth as silk. I would politely ask that you abandon this with respect.
 
billonlogan said:
Chuck Cadman’s legacy may be brought to disrepute if the ethics committee changes their pursuit of Mulroney to investigate this new improved one. I understand how this might be news, but I don’t like it for this reason. Although I empathize with all Ms. Cadman has gone through with the death of her son and her fine husband, I feel ‘uglying’ this up politically besmirches Chuck Cadman’s memory. ...
Click to expand...

This viewpoint has a bit of merit, but if there is actually any reasonable chance of wrongdoing here, it should be pursued, preferably by way of a judicial inquiry, not by a bunch of politicians on both sides of the House braying at each other, which is, as you correctly say, disrespectful.

My own feeling, as I posted earlier, is that it's a bit of a tempest in a teacup. It has had a ring of untruth to it from the beginning. However, the way to put it to rest would be a proper inquiry.
 
Are you joking, billonlogan? Exposing this scandal, and his refusal to accept a massive amount of money that nobody would ever know about on a matter of principle, burnishes his reputation immensely. The only people whose reputations are harmed are the people who tried to bribe him. As the stunningly admirable Mr. Cadman said to his wife, he's ashamed to have ever been associated with that group.

I guess the Paul Martin smear didn't really stick. Now the Tory line is that exposing that the guy refused a bribe somehow besmirches his legacy?
 
heckles said:
But I do question how he just knows the man is honest?
Click to expand...
No, you did not question his knowledge of the matter. What you questioned was how he was qualified to to say what he did.

Please re-read your own post, and you'll clearly see that you've asked "How are you qualified to say this is an honest man to a fault?" not "how do you know this is an honest man to a fault?"

So, I ask you again, surely he is qualified to have an opinion?
 
Admiral Beez said:
No, you did not question his knowledge of the matter. What you questioned was how he was qualified to to say what he did.

Please re-read your own post, and you'll clearly see that you've asked "How are you qualified to say this is an honest man to a fault?" not "how do you know this is an honest man to a fault?"

So, I ask you again, surely he is qualified to have an opinion?
Click to expand...

I've already answered the question, but on another side of the coin you're thinking way too hard. The point is that he didn't say how he knows he's honest, he just said he feels he's honest.

You're making this into something far more than it is, although its certainly humorous. ;)
 
heckles said:
I've already answered the question, but on another side of the coin you're thinking way too hard. The point is that he didn't say how he knows he's honest, he just said he feels he's honest.

You're making this into something far more than it is, although its certainly humorous. ;)
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I've met PM Harper on a number of occasions, both professionally and personal, so my opinion is biased.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top