Calling Canadian libel lawyers with heart

Surely somewhere in Canada there is an experienced libel lawyer willing to help an unfairly maligned journalist and author find justice? I surely hope there is. Justice shouldn't only be open to the wealthy, and the rich should not be allowed to bully the poor without consequence. Is there a Canadian libel lawyer out there willing to take Tom Zytaruk's case on pro bono and win one for the little guy?

Zytaruk also has a column worth reading in today's Surrey Now.

And to Mr. Big Mouth Pierre Poilievre, be a man and repeat your accusations outside of the House, without the shield of parliamentary privilege to protect you.

Cadman biographer threatens to sue Conservatives

Updated Fri. Feb. 13 2009 4:49 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Chuck Cadman's biographer says he might sue members of the Conservative government for what he calls a smear on his reputation.

But facing a Tory party with deep pockets, Tom Zytaruk says he would first need a lawyer willing to work for free.

He says he's fed up watching Conservatives sully his reputation.

"This arrogant government knows they can say and do whatever they want -- or feels they can," Zytaruk said in an interview.

"What can little Joe regular Canadian do in response? They're laughing at me."
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Our "liberal" media at work

So late this afternoon its quietly announced that the Conservatives are dropping the $3.5 million libel lawsuit against the Liberal Party over the Cadman affair. Gee, the Prime Minister dropping a libel lawsuit against the main opposition party, questions still unanswered about just what "financial considerations" they offered a dying MP for his vote and what Harper knew and when. That seems newsworthy, yes?

Let's see how our infamous "liberal" media, as my conservative friends insist on liking to call them, are playing the story.

First, here's the National Post. They do give the story third-billing, so that's something. It might have gotten top billing, but this peanut butter story makes Watergate look like a church picnic, so how could they not lead with it?


How about the Globe and Mail. It's there somewhere, I'm sure...let's see, big photo of Harper with hockey players, he's doing something with arenas it seems, but I'm not sure what...there it is, third story, next to something about chickens chasing foxes.

Let's wander over to CTV. Obama looking pissed off, a cop looking even more pissed off...look, a kitten...now where's the story, must be here somewhere...ah, there it is, right between Harper saying Duffy insenuating a sexual relationship between two premiers was "perhaps" inappropriate and a gay couple married in Canada getting divorced in New Jersey. One of these stories is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...

Meanwhile, still nothing over in Blogging Tory-land on how this is a huge victory for their Dear Leader as I write this at 9:34PM EST. But if you want to read about reptile crap, people with accents arguing over fruit or Prince Charles' investment strategies, you're in luck.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives drop Cadman suit, Harper gets "personality" back

As you know by now, late on Friday afternoon (where the government dumps all the stories they'd rather not get too much play) the news broke that the Conservatives have dropped their $3.5 million libel lawsuit against the Liberal Party over the Cadman affair.

Stephen Harper has dropped a $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party over the Cadman affair.

A terse news release says the prime minister and the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada have agreed to settle all issues related to the suit.

The action has been dismissed without costs awarded to either side and both parties have agreed not to comment further.

While there will be no public commentary and no costs awarded, I've been working my sources in Ottawa and I've learned some of the terms of the resolution. It relates to this:

Harper's initial defamation claim was for $2.5 million but it was subsequently boosted last July by another million dollars for "misappropriation of personality."

I can exclusively report that, after much pleading, the Liberals have agreed to return Stephen Harper's personality in exchange for his dropping the lawsuit. Harper plans to have it dry cleaned over the weekend, and will again have a personality by Monday. Unfortunately, it's the same personality he had before we took it, so don't get your hopes up.

(BACKGROUND: My past Cadman affair posts:
*Why release non-relevant affidavits? Here's why
*Liberal Party, Give Harper back his personality right this minute!
*The Conservatives’ independent tape expert was a Republican donor and organizer
*Cadman tape: What's the motive, means and opportunity?
*Cadscam isn't over
*I'm not surprised
*Weston's Cadman theory still sounds legally infeasible to me
*Stephen Harper threatens to sue one third of Canada's population
*Harper can’t take a punch, threatens libel lawsuit
*Jodi Cadman: I burst into tears
*Charles Adler: Maybe it's Chuck Cadman's fault
*The Cadman affair continues, more information and more questions
*The Conservative allegedly tried to buy Chuck Cadman off)

But seriously, folks. Remember all the bluster from the Conservatives when they launched this lawsuit, backed by the bestest lawyer ever, and how they were going to make those dastardly Liberals pay for their lies? If you've forgotten, Paul Wells has a handy reminder. And a handy Cadman affair refresher timeline.

So, while the two sides say they won't be talking about this, what can we take from the Harper dropping the lawsuit?

I'd speculate it means there was probably more truth to the Liberal allegations than Harper was willing to admit, and what's more, Harper believes the Liberals were going to be able to prove it in open court. Remember, the onus wasn't on Harper to prove the comments libelous. The Liberals had to prove they weren't libelous. If Harper's calling it quits, a logical scenario would be him deciding the Liberals could made that case (in open court) and he was probably going to lose. Would also explain why his super-awesome lawyer jumped ship awhile ago.

There are other possibilities, but they don't hold water.

Maybe Harper had a change of heart decided to be a nice guy, and forget the whole thing? Unlikely to the point of laughable. Maybe the parliamentary privilege extending to the Web site argument looking like it would hold? Again, unlikely. If that were the case, Harper would scream blue murder and wouldn't have had no-commenting as part of the terms of dropping the suit.

No, I think it's the “both parties have agreed not to comment further” bit that is telling. Harper wanted out because he wasn't going to win, and was going to be embarrassed.

So, if that's so, you ask, then why did the Liberals agree to the no comment thing? Why not keep fighting, embarrass him, etc? That's a good question. The simple answer is money.

Even with a losing case, the Conservatives have the deep pockets to drag this thing through the courts for years if they want to. The Liberals, very much, don't have the money. As much as I'd love to see Harper on the stand in open-court, a lengthily discovery process, etc., a look at our fund raising numbers shows we don't have the money for that. So, for the Liberals, it makes sense to stop paying legal bills and devote those limited resources to organization. And remember, even if we're confident of an eventual victory, there's no guarantee we'd get our legal costs back.

And that's another argument in favour of the first scenario. Even with an iffy case, Harper and the Conservatives could have bled us dry on legal fees for months, which would play well with their goal to destroy the LPC as a functioning political party. The fact they're deciding not to is telling.

But this is all speculation on my part. We don't really know how or why it was ended. But we do know this: The Liberals have issued NO APOLOGY here, and NO RETRACTION.

Anyway, with the lawsuit now behind us, there are still many unanswered questions in the Cadman affair, and Harper has still yet to offer a credible explanation for what was said on the infamous audio recording:

Zytaruk: "I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?"

Harper: "I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"

Zytaruk: "This (inaudible) for the book. Not for the newspaper. This is for the book."

Harper: "Um, I don't know the details. I can tell you that I had told the individuals, I mean, they wanted to do it. But I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind, he was going to vote with the Liberals and I knew why and I respected the decision. But they were just, they were convinced there was, there were financial issues. There may or may not have been, but I said that's not, you know, I mean, I, that's not going to change."

Zytaruk: "You said (inaudible) beforehand and stuff? It wasn't even a party guy, or maybe some friends, if it was people actually in the party?"

Harper: "No, no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don't press him. I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and, you know, just, you know, if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't press it. I don't think, my view was, my view had been for two or three weeks preceding it, was that Chuck was not going to force an election. I just, we had all kinds of our guys were calling him, and trying to persuade him, I mean, but I just had concluded that's where he stood and respected that."

Zytaruk: "Thank you for that. And when (inaudible)."

Harper: "But the, uh, the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."

Zytaruk: "Oh, OK."

Harper: "OK? That's my understanding of what they were talking about."

Zytaruk: "But, the thing is, though, you made it clear you weren't big on the idea in the first place?"

Harper: "Well, I just thought Chuck had made up his mind, in my own view ..."

Zytaruk: "Oh, okay. So, it's not like, he's like, (inaudible)."

Harper: "I talked to Chuck myself. I talked to (inaudible). You know, I talked to him, oh, two or three weeks before that, and then several weeks before that. I mean, you know, I kind of had a sense of where he was going."

Zytaruk: "Well, thank you very much."

Looks like work for one of our fine parliamentary committees to me.



ELSEWHERE, On the blogs

*“The truth is that this will prove to be in court the biggest mistake the leader of the Liberal Party ever made” Stephen Harper
*Tories: "Err...on second thought..."
*Harper's Cadman lawsuit a monument to political censorship
*My guess is you’ll hear crickets chirping over at Blogging Tory Central HQ.
*BREAKING: Cadscam Lawsuit Settled - No Apology!
*Cadman suit dropped
*Settled, but not forgotten
*Conservatives capitulate on Cadman
*Harper Lawsuit Pulled - No Liberal Retraction Requested
*How much have Conservative donors spent on Harper's failed Cadman lawsuit?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

BREAKING: Conservative party drops Cadman defamation suit against Liberals (UPDATED)

(Further update: Please read above post "Conservatives drop Cadman suit, Harper gets "personality" back " for my analysis/commentary on this news)

(Update: Replaced CP bulletin with newer story, commentary to follow)

Tories drop Cadman defamation suit against Liberals
Source: The Canadian Press - Broadcast wire
Feb 6, 2009 16:48

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper has dropped a $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party over the Cadman affair.

A terse news release says the prime minister and the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada have agreed to settle all issues related to the suit.

The action has been dismissed without costs awarded to either side and both parties have agreed not to comment further.

Harper launched the lawsuit last March after the Liberal party accused the prime minister of condoning immoral, illegal and unethical behaviour in the Cadman affair.

The Liberals charged that Harper was aware of an attempt by Conservative officials to bribe Chuck Cadman, the late independent MP, in return for his support during a crucial 2005 confidence vote.

(The Canadian Press)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Passing sentence on the Conservative Party

Even with Stephen Harper's mad, frightened dash to get into an election before the house of cards that is his alleged reputation for “leadership and competence” comes tumbling down, there are still a some interesting time-bombs that could blow-up in his face mid-campaign.

Just off hand, there's Julie Couillard's tell-all book, telling her life story from cavorting with biker gang members to canoodling with former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier and his classified briefs. It's release date is Oct. 14, but count on some juicy excerpts being released to the hungry media hordes mid-campaign to maximize publicity.

The catalog says the book will cover Couillard's life from her upbringing in a modest Montreal suburb through her relationships with men embroiled in the world of Montreal's criminal biker gangs through to her experiences in the corridors of power on the arm of former Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier where she met a number of world leaders including U.S. President George W. Bush.

Moreover, it looks like Couillard is going to use the book to set the record straight and settle more than a few scores. "In this profoundly human autobiography, she responds to the multiple lies, half-truths and speculation that has been written about her over the course of the last few months," reads the catalog.

Then there's Stephen Harper's lawsuit against the Liberal Party for libel relating to the Chuck Cadman affair and the allegations the Conservatives offered a $1 million life insurance policy to the dying MP if he voted with the Conservatives in a confidence vote. Speaking of which, Harper still has yet to explain just what he meant by “financial considerations”, just who supposedly doctored the recording of him talking about it, why they'd do that, how any editing would change the meaning of what he said...basically, he's offered no credible explanation for the affair or his role in it.

Anyway, the lawsuit is proceeding and the next hearing should take place during the campaign:

But Mr. Dearden revealed that the next hearing in the case — a potentially explosive court drama that could take place in the midst of an expected federal election campaign — may now have to be postponed.

Postpone, now why would Harper's lawyer want to do that? I thought he wanted this case to proceed expeditiously, to hold those dastardly Liberals to account for their libelous libels? I guess that takes back-seat to headlines mid-campaign reminding us of allegations of the Conservatives trying to buy off MPs. But doesn't he want his personality back before the election?

Lastly for our campaign calendar, there's a federal court hearing relating to the death penalty, always a meaty campaign topic. You may recall that shortly coming to power, Harper and Stockwell Day decided they didn't really care anymore if Canadians got executed abroad, ending a long-running policy of seeking clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty in other countries.

The widely expected mid-October federal election would see one of the Conservative government's most controversial decisions -- its refusal to seek clemency for a Canadian on death row in the United States -- put on trial at the height of the campaign.

The Federal Court of Canada has scheduled a two-day judicial review of Canada's new policy on the death penalty to begin Sept. 29 in Toronto.

A legal team representing Alberta-born murderer Ronald Smith, 50, and government lawyers will present opposing arguments about the October 2007 policy change, which ended a long-standing federal practice of automatically seeking clemency for any Canadian facing execution in a foreign country.

This should generate some interesting debate mid-campaign. Canadians have firmly rejected the death penalty as morally unconscionable and unacceptable to our legal system. The Conservatives are going to have to explain to Canadians why they are doing an end-run around that consensus, and explain whether or not this is the beginning of a plan to re-introduce capital punishment in Canada. If we won't accept capital punishment here, we shouldn't abandon our citizens to it overseas, no matter how heinous their crimes.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why release non-relevant affidavits? Here's why

There have been two threads buzzing with comments today over at Inside the Queensway about an affidavit filed by Dona Cadman related to the Stephen Harper libel lawsuit against the Liberal Party over the Chuck Cadman affair.

From reading ITQ's coverage of the statements and the who said what and when it seems pretty clear to me the Conservative are blowing smoke here; none of their alleged inconsistencies alter the essential facts of the case, change what Stephen Harper is heard to say on the Tom Zytaruk tape, or shine light on just what the Conservatives allege was doctored from the tape, and how that would change the meaning of what Harper is heard to say.

What I did find tangentially new with this latest development (and again, thanks for keeping the story of your attempt to secure the vote of a dying MP by offering to “replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election” alive) is that they seem to be going after the journalist, Tom Zytaruk, in a way they haven’t before. Indeed, they’ve generally avoided attempting to impugn his credibility previously. In the infamous “doctored tapes” presser they avoided saying just whom they allege did the doctoring, when their timeline only seems to allow opportunity to Zytaruk and/or his publisher. How far will they go down this road before Zytaruk might decide he has a libel case?

Anyway, I’d been wondering earlier just what the Con strategy was here, denying things no one said happened on points not pertinent to the actual issues at hand. But then I saw this headline, and all was clear:


Lazy headline writers is what they were banking on, and lazy readers. Many people will just read the headline, or the head and the lead. What’s this? His widow denies the author’s story they’ll say. And that will be filed away as a mark against the allegations in their consciousness.

Nevermind she’s not denying the relevant points of the allegations, just that they talked inside the house. Something it's unclear he ever really even claimed, and that doesn't matter anyway. They’ll just see “widow denies” and move on.

So, all in all, a good bit of short-term communications and media management by the Conservatives, all for the cost of an affidavit.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal Party, Give Harper back his personality right this minute!

This made me laugh heartily:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has upped the ante in his $2.5 million defamation suit against the Liberals, claiming an additional $1 million for "misappropriation of personality."

So that's what happened to Stephen Harper's personality. The Liberals stole it! Bad Liberals, give Stephen back his personality right this minute!

Oh, and thank-you Conservative Party of Canada for once again bringing the Cadman affair back into the headlines and reminding us just how morally bankrupt you are, allegedly making million-dollar offers to secure the votes of dying MPs.

And for reminding us that you've yet to offer a credible explanation for Stephen Harper's comments on the infamous tape, what he meant by "financial considerations", just what you allege was "doctored" from the tapes, how that would change what Harper was saying, just who did the alleged doctoring, and how in the heck you could possibly expect anyone to believe all you offered him was help with his next campaign, when everyone knew there was no chance Chuck Cadman was ever going to run again.

But really, give Harper back his personality guys, that's just not nice.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservatives’ independent tape expert was a Republican donor and organizer

One of the independent experts the Conservatives put forward in their dog and pony show today, according to the documents posted by Conservative Blogger-in-Chief Stephen Taylor, is Thomas Owen of Owl Communications.

According to the Owl Investigations Web site:

Owl Investigations, Inc. offers one of the most sophisticated digital audio and video processing laboratories presently available. Thomas J. Owen, a nationally known expert, served for many years on the Board of The International Association for Voice Identification. He currently serves as Chairman of the Audio Engineering Society's Standards Group WG-12 on Forensic Audio, and is the Chairman of the American Board of Recorded Evidence. Tom Owen is also the Head Instructor for the New York Institute of Forensic Audio from 1992 to the present.

He certainly sounds qualified, I don’t doubt his qualifications and I don't want to suggest or imply that I in any way doubt his qualifications. There’s just a few things missing from his bio though. For example, he used to be head of the Woodbridge Township Republican Organization, an important regional organization role with the party (from 2004):

Four months after the Republicans failed in their bid to oust incumbent Mayor Frank Pelzman or four Democrats from any of the at-large council seats, Thomas Owen, a forensic scientist who was at the helm of the Woodbridge GOP since 2002, resigned citing business obligations. Owen runs Owl Investigations Inc. out of his Colonia home. He specializes in voice identification and audio and videotape analysis. His clients include major federal and state agencies.

"I got involved in several major cases," he said. "Being a chairman takes time. The business had to be put on the back burner."

Owen said he supports Paone’s chairmanship.

"There’s no bad will or anything," Owen said. "Nobody wanted me to resign. In fact, I put [Paone] in there. I mean, I suggested he be the one. He’s always been a hard worker and I think he wanted it. That’s half the battle — someone who wants it and wants to be active."

And according to Campaign Money, he donated $1000 to Republican candidates in 2000.


I like, though, that Owl Communications has a MySpace page. Yes, a MySpace page. That plays the CSI theme song when you open it.


Just seven friends though? If you actually still have a MySpace account, do him a favour and add the Conservatives’ independent audio expert to your friends list.

Oh, and wondering how much the Conservatives might have paid to hire their audio investigator? Here’s his rates. Not cheap. Wonder if the Cons used PayPal?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cadman tape: What's the motive, means and opportunity?

With the Bernier scandal not quite beginning to die down the Conservatives are doing their best to revive another one of the many scandals they’ve been implicated in, the Cadman affair.

You can read some analysis of today’s events from Scott and Steve and Impolitical and Red Tory and Calgary Grit, and some live blogging of the surreal presser by Kady here. I just have a few, I think rather obvious, questions about all this.

Let’s grant the Conservative premise that the tapes were “doctored” or otherwise manipulated for a few minutes. WHO do the Conservatives contend did the doctoring?

Given the chain of evidence on the tapes as laid-out by the Conservatives at their presser, the tape went straight from the publisher to the CPC lawyers to their unnamed experts for testing. Assuming nothing was done to the tape while in CPC custody, that would seem to mean they are alleging any doctoring was done before or while the tape was in the publisher’s custody. The possible conspirators would then, I suppose, likely have to either be the publisher and/or the journalist/author that made the original recording. Or, perhaps, the Liberals have a mole in the publishing house, or sent a secret agent to break-in during the night and replace the originals with a phony edited version.

Here's the thing though. If a third-party doctored the tapes, wouldn't the journalist and/or the publisher stand-up and say "hey, that's not what I recorded, I call shenanigans! Shenanigans, I say!"? And yet, they both stand by the tape. Which would mean according to tortured Conservative logic they either did it or they're part of some sort of cover-up.

Again, if the Cons allege doctoring, just who do they finger as the culprit?

Once you answer the who you need to answer the why. Motive. Why would the alleged conspirator in the pantry with the candlestick have edited the tapes? Was it the Liberals to make the Conservatives look bad? Ample motive, but where’s the opportunity? The author and the publishing house had better opportunity, and a decent motive, selling more books. It still doesn’t pass the smell test though. Would a journalist and/or a publisher really risk their careers/business and invite multi-million dollar lawsuits by doctoring a tape of the Prime Minister? I don’t buy it. Just doesn’t pass the smell test.

If this alleged editing or doctoring or what have you is so bad, why are the Cons just trying to exclude the tape from being used by the Liberal Party? Why aren't they going after the author/publisher for using it in the book, and for selling copies to the national media? Why didn't they do that MONTHS ago, when it was being shopped around and written about? If their expert evidence is so compelling, why aren’t they taking legal action against whomever they believe did the doctoring?

So, you say the tape is doctored. OK then. What did Stephen Harper say that was edited out? And how does that change the meaning of the clip of what he said that we do have:

Zytaruk: "I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?"

Harper: "I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"

Zytaruk: "This (inaudible) for the book. Not for the newspaper. This is for the book."

Harper: "Um, I don't know the details. I can tell you that I had told the individuals, I mean, they wanted to do it. But I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind, he was going to vote with the Liberals and I knew why and I respected the decision. But they were just, they were convinced there was, there were financial issues. There may or may not have been, but I said that's not, you know, I mean, I, that's not going to change."

Zytaruk: "You said (inaudible) beforehand and stuff? It wasn't even a party guy, or maybe some friends, if it was people actually in the party?"

Harper: "No, no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don't press him. I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and, you know, just, you know, if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't press it. I don't think, my view was, my view had been for two or three weeks preceding it, was that Chuck was not going to force an election. I just, we had all kinds of our guys were calling him, and trying to persuade him, I mean, but I just had concluded that's where he stood and respected that."

Zytaruk: "Thank you for that. And when (inaudible)."

Harper: "But the, uh, the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."

Zytaruk: "Oh, OK."

Harper: "OK? That's my understanding of what they were talking about."

Zytaruk: "But, the thing is, though, you made it clear you weren't big on the idea in the first place?"

Harper: "Well, I just thought Chuck had made up his mind, in my own view ..."

Zytaruk: "Oh, okay. So, it's not like, he's like, (inaudible)."

Harper: "I talked to Chuck myself. I talked to (inaudible). You know, I talked to him, oh, two or three weeks before that, and then several weeks before that. I mean, you know, I kind of had a sense of where he was going."

Zytaruk: "Well, thank you very much."

It seems from my reading of the press conference coverage that they don’t allege the portion we have has been doctored in a, shall we saw, Grewalian fashion (words added or deleted mid-sentance), but rather, they allege the rest of the interview that we don’t have someone puts these comments, such as “replace financial considerations” and “they were legitimately representing the party” in a different context , that somehow the meaning was changed. Pray tell, how? Did he say at the end “just kidding” or something? What did he say in the rest of the tape?

This is all a load of horse hooey, and I feel bad for James Moore being forced by Harper to go up there and shovel it when he had to know better. Ah James, you once had such promise. What happened? Steve isn’t going to put you into cabinet unless you move to Quebec, no matter how much manure you shovel for him. Better to join Michael Chong in principled isolation then keep selling your soul.

If this is somehow designed to pressure the Liberals to cave on the libel suit, I say fight on. If they're this desperate they must be concerned. Or maybe that's just what Stephen Harper wants us to think, that crazy chess playing son of a gun...

Oh, and no, the tapes weren't doctored. Either way though, Steve Harper still has some explaining to do...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cadscam isn't over

All the RCMP decision means is there isn’t enough information to support criminal charges. That’s no surprise, I said that months ago. Heresay isn't legally admissible, Chuck Cadman can't testify, and those that made the offer/s to him have no reason to fall on their swords. The RCMP didn't say the charges were false. They said they can't be proven in a court of law.

The fact remains, the behaviour of the Conservatives during the Cadman affair, and since it came to light, is sketchy and unethical at best.

The fact remains, the Conservatives have yet to come clean and answer very basic, simple questions about their behaviour and their actions. Instead, they have deflected and obfuscated.

The fact remains, the Conservatives have yet to offer a explanation for just what sort of offer they made to a man on his deathbed that makes any sense at all.

The fact remains, the Conservatives have not explained what Stephen Harper meant on that tape when he said “financial considerations” and they haven’t told us what Harper knew, and when.

And why is Dona Cadman still a Conservative candidate if the party thinks she made the whole thing up?

There are many unanswered questions, and Canadians are still owed proper explications. Here’s what we do know. The Conservative Party made some sort of offer involving “financial considerations” in an attempt to secure the vote of a man dying of cancer. I don't think that's in dispute.

Was there any illegality involved? I don’t know. Clearly, at this point there isn’t sufficient evidence to support any charges. This thing was never going to be settled in court though. The public will have its say in the next election, and the public doesn’t need the RCMP or the judicial system to tell it offering a dying MP “financial considerations” for his vote is disgusting and morally wrong.

And as for the Conservative libel lawsuit against the Liberals, why would it be dropped? First of all, even if it looked like the case would be lost, frankly I think the spectacle of discovery, a public jury trial, and Stephen Harper on the stand testifying about the Zytaruk tape, would be worth whatever the libel award would end up being. Pass the hat for donations on that one, I'll chip in $20 to see Harper et al on the stand, under oath.

However, this libel suit won't hinge on the merits of the allegations; it’s whether or not statements made inside the House of Commons can be repeated verbatim in a news release under the shield of immunity. The argument there is as strong today as it was yesterday, and frankly, with the potential ramifications of the Conservative opinion for new media and bloggers (could be we sued for reporting on debate in the HoC?) the issue shouldn’t be abandoned.

Cadscam over? Far from it. With the RCMP investigation out of the way, now there’s absolutely no reason why the parliamentary ethics committee can’t begin to look into this. I trust that, like some of their blogging supporters, the NDP will now support such parliamentary investigation.

Trust me, this thing is far from over. Canadians need answers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'm not surprised

This morning the RCMP’s Public Complaints Commission is scheduled to release the results of its probe into the bombshell that rocked the last election: the RCMP’s mid-election fax to the NDP’s Judy Wasylycia-Leis confirming the force was investigating Finance Minister Ralph Goodale’s office vis a vis the income trust leak.

While the revelation was a body blow to the Liberal campaign, and sparked a media feeding frenzy, you’ll recall in the end Goodale was exonerated. And the Conservatives flip-flopped on income trusts, breaking a clear and firm promise.

Macleans.ca’s Kady O’Malley is surprised at the lack of media attention to the investigation by commission chair Paul Kennedy into whether the disclosure constituted unfair interference in the democratic process:

At the same time, I've been somewhat surprised by how little interest his decision to investigate the allegations has generated in the media - back when it was first announced a little more than a year ago, but last month, when it was revealed that the RCMP had prepared a communications strategy surrounding possible charges against an unnamed political staffer, which eventually failed to transpire.

I’m not surprised myself. If there’s one thing the media is loathe to do it’s to admit, or even hint, that they may have been wrong. They were all over Goodale and the Liberals on this during the last election. They’re certainly not going to give much ink to a story that could indicate their fervor was misplaced. Once they decide on a narrative it will take a tsunami to push them off it. Picture the kid with their fingers in their ears crying “la la la.”

And for the record, no matter what Kennedy reports today, the infamous income trusts fax did not cost the Liberals the last election. Sure didn’t help. But we lost the last election for a multitude of reasons I’ve already explored at length. So no wondering what might have been, please.

Instead, our eyes should be looking forward. And at our own fax machines, lest any Cadman Affair-related faxes be coming from the serge-coated ones.

UPDATE: The report is out, and I'm still not overly surprised:

The RCMP didn't break any rules when it announced a criminal investigation into the federal Finance Department in the middle of the 2005-06 election campaign, because there were no rules to break, concludes a report by the RCMP's watchdog.

Well that about sums it up doesn’t it? It’s kind of hard to break the rules when there are no rules.

Kennedy goes on:

"Given the absence of any such specific policy, procedures or guidelines, (Kennedy) could not find that any RCMP officer failed to comply with applicable standards," according to a press release accompanying the report.

Kennedy said the Mounties' policies are "inadequate" to deal with situations where public disclosure of a police investigation may have an impact on a democratic process.

Now the debate will be should there be policies for such situations? Actually I think we all agree there should be a policy of some sort so the question is, really, what should the policy be?

Because if we’re to ensure there isn’t a hint of politicization in these things there needs to be a clearly defined policy that the RCMP follows in all cases. It can’t be left to the whim of the commissioner or individual officers.

I don’t think disclosure of an ongoing investigation should be treated any differently then any other investigation just because it involves public figures, or comes during an election campaign. Whatever rules apply to the disclosure of investigations involving non-public figures should also apply here.

And I’m pretty sure faxing MPs isn’t normal procedure, and calling them repeatedly to make sure they got it, isn’t normal procedure.

UPDATED AGAIN: The Globe’s coverage has some interesting revelations:

Former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli changed a press release on the force's investigation into an income-trust leak to include the name of then Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale…

“Mr. Zacardelli directed that a media release be prepared… This release was amended upon Commissioner Zaccardelli's direction to include the name of Mr. Goodale.”

A very telling move for the commissioner of the RCMP to take, in the midst of an election campaign, and certainly one that puts his motives into question. Kennedy says he has no evidence Zaccardelli’s decision was politically motivated. Of course, Zaccardelli wasn’t exactly cooperative, so a lack of evidence is unsurprising:

Mr. Kennedy said that Mr. Zaccardelli and several senior members of the RCMP policy centre, which was responsible for the conduct and communication of the income-trust investigation, refused to provide him with any information about the disclosure.

Why did they not cooperate? Can they not be compelled to cooperate? I’d suggest Parliamentary committee hearings, but it would quickly become politicized, despite the fact these are important issues that should be resolved.

Also of note:

He also noted that the RCMP has no policy on notifying complainants when an investigation is initiated into a complaint.

Which means the RCMP decided that, for some reason, it was particularly important we know about this particular investigation. All the more reason for a formal policy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Weston's Cadman theory still sounds legally infeasible to me

Sun columnist Greg Weston floats a theory today he says may explain happened in the Chuck Cadman affair.

It's an involved theory so you should go and read his column first. In essence, he postulates the Conservatives may have offered Chuck Cadman an $80,000 loan, supposedly for re-election purposes, but with a wink-wink knowing Cadman wasn't going to actually run, but would instead spend the money to top-up his MP pension plan to a level that the benefits payable on his death, if Donna Cadman lived another 30 years, would be in the $1 million range. And when Cadman passed away, just maybe they wouldn't require the loan to be repaid by his estate/family.

Certaintly seems like a theory that's at least possible. Let me ask all the lawyers out there though, wouldn't that theorized scenario be illegal too? A loan that you never expect to be repaid, that you know won't be used for the stated purpose, in order to secure a vote? It comes down to saying maybe the alleged bribe was only $80,000, not $1 million.

It's a nice theory, but if true I don't think it gets the Conservatives off the hook legally. And morally it's just as bad.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper threatens to sue one third of Canada's population

OK, not really. At least, not yet ... but watch out, one in three Canadians, you could be next!

Nearly one in three Canadians thinks Prime Minister Stephen Harper was lying when he said he knew of no $1-million life insurance policy offer to dying MP Chuck Cadman. The offer was reportedly in exchange for his support in defeating the Liberal government in a crucial confidence vote in May 2005, a new Ipsos-Reid poll says.

It's a poll, so more as always, from Steve.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How not to convert wavering left Liberal voters

If the NDP is trying to soften-up the Liberal left flank and convince some its members to lend them their votes, or lease them outright, its apparent strategy on the scandalous Cadman allegations is only going to hurt them.


Their strategy has been most curious.

It seems to many, myself included, like they’ve been trying to downplay it. Why? The answer to that is readily apparent. The Liberals have been out in front on this, it’s quite possible the NDP fears that if this thing takes off in the public consciousness the Liberals will gain support. Of course, the Conservative will lose support, but the NDP aren’t going to gain support from the Conservatives. Any gain in Liberal support is bad for the NDP. It’s just politics.

Now, the NDP and its supporters will insist that this isn’t about politics at all. Frankly, every party plays politics, the NDP included, yet only they insist they don’t. Not sure who they think they’re fooling. But anyway, they’ll also insist that they do think these allegations are very serious and should be investigated fully.

They’ll point to their support of an RCMP investigation and one by the special prosecutor to support that claim. Pat Martin’s prior professed lack of faith in the RCMP aside, and his apparently not knowing what the special prosecutor actually does, I’m willing to grant most NDPers some ground here.

They lose me though on their lack of support for an investigation by the parliamentary ethics committee. I don’t find their reasoning here as having merit, nor do I Paul Szabo’s for that matter. They say concurrent hearings could impede any RCMP investigation. That’s just not true. And even if it did, that didn’t stop the NDP from supporting committee hearings into Adscam, or Mulroney/Schreiber.

Let’s say though that the NDP truly want this issue investigated, and believe committee hearings would hamper the RCMP. That line of reasoning becomes hard to swallow when your star MP makes comments like these:

Mulclair
"At the end of the day, we have a Liberal opposition that's not there in the House of Commons"

Newman:
"What's that have to do with, with all due respect, financial considerations in a tape recording from 2005?"

Mulclair:
"Don, it's got everything to do with what there up to. They're trying to pound the table over an issue where the only person who actually knows what went on, who's unfortunately no longer with us, said there is no offer."

Was Muclair betraying the NDP’s true feelings on the Cadman scandal, minimize and keep attacking the Liberals, or was he freelancing and out of bounds? If it is the latter and not the former Jack Layton should smack him down or make him issue a clarification. Because otherwise, the impression he leaves about the NDP’s motives on the Cadman mess are clear.

The Globe’s Adam Radwanski is perplexed:

The NDP has an opportunity to pain itself as the only national party willing to stand up to the Conservatives. But they're so busy explaining that the Liberals aren't standing up to the Conservatives that they're forgetting to do so themselves. And so when he took to the airwaves today, the New Democrats' leader-in-waiting accidentally backed himself into the Tories' position on the Cadman mess - dismissing the entirely relevant questions about what the Prime Minister was talking about in '05 as irrelevant.

… But the Liberals aren't in government; the Tories are. If you forget that, you become a pretty lousy opposition party - which helps explain why, amid all of Stephane Dion's woes leading the Liberals, the NDP has managed to lose public support since the last election.

The Toronto Star’s editorial board is too:

Layton's apparent rationale – that the RCMP should be left to do the job – is unpersuasive. Yesterday Layton slammed Harper over the Cadman affair. "We get half truths, half the time," he said. Shouldn't the NDP then be pressing for full answers? Or is Layton more concerned about preventing the rival Liberals from profiting politically from the Tories' embarrassment?

…The reason offered by NDP panel member Pat Martin for objecting to a parliamentary probe is risible. "We don't need a parliamentary committee to tell us whether it is right or wrong to bribe a Member of Parliament," he said. By that skewed logic the NDP could just as easily have objected to looking into the controversial business dealings between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber. In fact, Martin and the NDP played a big role in those hearings.

The fact is, Canadians want answers on this Cadscam. And they’re going to look pretty unfavourably, to say the least, on the NDP if it stands in the way because it won’t hurt the Liberals. If they insist on looking at is strategically, then they should consider how a lefty Liberal voter on the fence will react to their downplaying allegations the Conservatives tried to buy off an MP. Not favourably.

Bottom lining it

I think we need an ethics committee investigation because, frankly, it’s the best way we have of potentially getting to the truth here, and getting the facts to the Canadian people.

The RCMP should investigate. As I said, committee hearings won’t hamper that work at all. I think it’s pretty likely no criminal charges will ever result though. There is insufficient admissible evidence to meet a legal burden of proof. Chuck Cadman isn’t with us, the Cadman family’s accounts are pretty much hearsay, and if there ever was a paper trail it’s long gone. The RCMP may get lucky, and it should do its work. But I’m not holding my breath. It also does its work in private, and on its own schedule., as it should frankly.

But Canadians deserve to have the facts on this scandal, as much as is possible, before the next election. The only way to do that is with immediate ethics committee hearings. These aren’t legal proceedings. All the facts will be presented, testimony will be given under oath, and then the jury will be the Canadian people, at the ballot box. The NDP shouldn’t deny them the right to have all the information possible before they make their decision.

MORE READING: Steve for the Liberals, Cam for the NDP.

PS: Just to balance things out, this motion from the Liberals is really very stupid, and embarrassing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fortune favours the daring

Two polls came out today, one from Angus Reid and the other from Harris-Decima . One shows it C34/L28, the other C31/L30. I prefer the latter one, for obvious reasons.

I'll leave the analysis to Steve, Scott and others, and there is something interesting stuff in some of the regionals (NDP and Greens tied in Ontario?). I will say that I think it's too early to look for what reaction there will be, if any, to the Cadman affair. Both these polls were conducted or began very early in that story. These things take some time to percolate, we should check back in a few weeks and I'll of course wait for The Nanos to weigh-in from on high.

I wanted though to note though this line from Angus Reid:

While Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion was critical of the budget, he immediately announced his party would not defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government.

Only 24 per cent of those polled supported his actions, with 51 per cent saying they disapproved of his performance.

And this from Decima:

A new poll suggests Stephen Harper's Conservatives have taken a beating in public opinion over the past week, but the opposition Liberals have done nothing to capitalize.

He's says the two major parties are in a neck-and-neck battle and neither appears to be gaining an edge.

If we'd said last Tuesday we're voting NO to this budget, I'd wager we'd be seeing very different poll numbers today. It would have been a gamble, yes. But fortune favours the daring, and it appears that for week one of the campaign at least the electoral gods would have been smiling upon us.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper can’t take a punch, threatens libel lawsuit

While Conservative apologists always call us crybabies and sissies when Liberals even hint at threatening a lawsuit when a Conservative says something even remotely libelous, I’m sure that won’t stop them from getting firmly behind their man Deceivin’ Steven:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper shot back at the Liberals over the Chuck Cadman affair Monday, filing a notice of libel suit against Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and two other top members of his caucus.

Court documents obtained by CTV and The Globe and Mail say two articles published on the Liberal website were “devastatingly defamatory.”

The notice of libel, which also names Liberal Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff and House Leader Ralph Goodale, takes on the Opposition for saying that Mr. Harper knew Conservative party officials attempted to bribe Mr. Cadman to vote against a Liberal budget in the spring of 2005.

You can read the actual libel notice here (pdf). It contains the allegations. I reviewed the notice and the news releases in question. At last check they were still on the Liberal Web site. You can Google the headline to find them, I’m not going to link to them for obvious reasons.

Reviewing the notice and the articles, as much as it pains me I think Harper probably has a case. It looks to me like the Liberals did step over the line.

I’ll note that I don’t buy all of the allegations in the libel notice, however. Some of them appear to be statements and question from the HoC that were reprinted by the Liberals in the news release. As we know, speech uttered in the HoC is protected by privilege and isn’t actionable for libel. If I recall my semester of media law, that privilege extends to journalists reporting statements said in the HoC. If a news release is quoting statements said in the HoC, wouldn’t they be covered by the privilege?

That’s not the case with all the statements noted in the libel notice however, just a few as far as I can tell.

I’ve been very careful with all my wording when blogging on this affair, as anyone blogging (and commenting) on this should be too. But it appears to me that in several of the examples the Liberals may have flat-out said Harper committed a criminal act. And that’s trouble.

The best defense for libel is (usually) the truth. We can suspect something, sure, and we all have our theories about what happened in the Cadman affair, and about what Harper knew and when. But nothing has been proven. So flat-out saying he did something is verboten.

If the Liberals wanted to fight this we’d have to prove that the allegations were true. If what was said was true, there’d be no libel. Another libel defence is fair comment, but there's no such case to be made here IMO. So we’d have to prove not only that the life insurance policy theory is true, and constitutes inducement under the law, but that Harper was aware beforehand that such an offer was going to be made.

And that’s going to be difficult, if not impossible. Chuck Cadman is no longer with us, and based on my Law and Order-based knowledge of the rules of evidence while his confession to his family might possibly be admitted since he did pass on, its far more likely it would be excluded as hearsay, and since there would be no possibility of cross-examination. Any paper trail, if there was one, is likely gone. And if we ever do find out who was at the March 17^th meeting in Surrey, it would be their word versus, well, no one’s since Dona and Jodi Cadman have no direct knowledge as far as the law is concerned.

Point being, while I think the Cadman allegations should be fully investigated by the proper authorities to air this thing as fully as possible and to uncover whatever evidence there is to uncover, I highly doubt any criminal charges will ever result. The judgment and any punishment in this case will be political, not legal, and the Canadian people will render their verdict at the ballot box.

In the legal realm, however, that leaves the Liberals up shit-creek on this libel suit. While I’d think that, in theory, they could decide to fight this and use the discovery process to try to pry documents out of the CPC and depose CPC officials under oath to see what they knew about any offer to Cadman, this could also be accomplished by a special prosecutor or the RCMP.

Again, as much as it pains me, I think the Liberals are going to have to eat this one, retract their statements and apologize. This does seem to be libel, and they have little to no legal possibility of proving their allegations as truthful. If they don’t apologize they leave themselves open to a hefty monetary judgment against them, money we don’t have and money the CPC will probably use to by TV ads attacking us for libeling the PM, or since its Harper personally me might use to buy a beach house near the Mulroneys in Florida.

Time for a Libel refresher

Has anyone briefed Stephane Dion, the Liberal caucus and the OLO communications staff on Libel law? Because most of these seem like pretty obvious and egregious violations. It’s not that hard to stay on the right side of the line, and yet it seems like they waltzed right across it.

It’s not the first time either. Just a few weeks ago Dion again made statements regarding Harper’s deputy press secretary, Dimitri Soudas that pretty clearly crossed the line. Soudas promptly slapped him with a lawyer’s letter, and Dion was forced to publicly apologize.

We should be hitting the Conservatives hard on the Cadman affair, on the Soudas thing, on lots of things. But know where the legal line is and do it intelligently, or else our legitimate case gets sidetracked and distracted by this legal crap. It’s amateur.

As for Harper

I’m undecided on what I think of this as a strategic move by Harper. I can understand the urge to defend your reputation. And as I’ve said I think he has a case. At the least, a little libel chill might temper the ferocious Liberal attacks. At the most, he might get a chunk of cash out of already low Liberal coffers and deeply embarrass the party. So it distracts the focus and puts the Liberals on the defensive, that's smart.

However, as others have pointed-out this does prolong the Cadman story, and give it new legs and a fresh angle for the media to chew on. We’re going to see more stories exploring what Harper knew and when. More questions to Conservative officials for a detailed explanation. You could argue it makes him appear the bully with potentially something to hide, and questions whether he wants to get to the truth or not.

Perhaps most potentially damaging are these comments from CTV stenographer Bob Fife:

Fife said senior Conservatives have told him they feel the Liberals are getting too much traction from the Cadman controversy.

"They're going to get tough with him (Dion) and this is one instance where they're fighting back," he said.

That seems to imply that Harper is less concerned about clearing his name then he is about using the legal system as a political club to beat the Liberals with. Also, it underlines that the Cons are very concerned about this Cadman controversy; they fear it is starting to resonate with Canadians.

That’s perhaps the most telling thing here of all.

More thoughts from Warren Kinsella, The Grumpy Voter, Far and Wide, Quito, Nottawa, Scott's Diatribes, The Galloping Beaver, The Wingnuterer, Canadian Cynic, Kady O'Malley and, well, probably every other political blogger in Canada.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jodi Cadman: I burst into tears

Jodi Cadman, daughter of late independent MP Chuck Cadman, gave a very thorough, frank and, I thought honest, interview on CPAC’s Goldhawk Live program tonight about the Cadman affair. A transcript of the interview follows:

Goldhawk: Why do you think your father, in the first place, told you about the insurance policy. Why do you think he did it, told you?

Cadman: It’s just speculation on my part because I never asked him why he was telling me. This came up of course, he had come back from Ottawa and I was out visiting him, I pretty much drove out there almost every day. Of course, we were talking about the vote, and I honestly wish I could remember how it segued into the conversation-

Goldhawk: But he offered it up, right?

Cadman: Yeah, he, you know to be honest I cannot recollect because he then told me that, you know, this stays between you and me, and-

Goldhawk: He didn’t want you to tell anybody?

Cadman: He didn’t want me to tell anyone, and that’s part of why I never wrote down anything, I didn’t catalogue all this, I never had any, any intention publically speaking about this.

Goldhawk: But he didn’t really offer you much detail about the insurance policy, and-

Cadman: No. The only thing he said to me was that there was a million dollar life insurance policy offered to him by the Tories.

Goldhawk: Yeah.

Cadman: And I was completely taken – I was angry. I was absolutely livid, and then I burst into tears because, just understanding – you know, he was in the last weeks of his life. There was a lot of people - people knew he was sick, but there was a lot of people that didn’t realize how sick he was, meaning he had just made that trip back to Ottawa-

Goldhawk: Yeah, he looked pretty healthy in front of the cameras. Everybody thought that.

Cadman: Exactly. And so there – people forget about that now. We can all say he only had six weeks to live, but, you know, the family was very privy to that and a lot of outside people didn’t realize that. So, when they say, you know, why would he spend this time, etcetera – you know, there’s just people who really don’t know the inside story of that.

Goldhawk: Yeah.

Cadman: He was very lucid at the time so anyone saying that he was confused or on medication, etcetera, that’s absolutely not true.

Goldhawk: You don’t buy that?

Cadman: No. It was not true.

Goldhawk: Was he, when he told you about the insurance policy offer, was he, was he angry? Was he telling it to you out of anger, or was he saying boy, get a load of this? Was it that kind of a thing?

Cadman: It was, you know, it’s hard to say for me because he was weak at the time, and, I think he had already processed a lot of that, you know, and when he told me I was so angry he then took the standard father approach and calmed me down.

Goldhawk: Yes, of course.

Cadman: And I, I did ask him, actually I said well what did the Liberals offer you? And that just kind of stemmed to because people implied the Liberals must have offered him something-

Goldhawk: Right.

Cadman: And he had said nothing, and he laughed when he said that. And that made me laugh, because we both kind of saw the joke in that, because after the vote, I mean if you read some of the message boards, and I should know by now not to go on line and read some of this stuff. You know, he must have been in the Liberals’ back pocket was a lot of things that were said. Me knowing the information he told me, that was really hard for me to take for awhile after that. It took a lot of self-control for me in the early days there not to phone-up a radio station or something and kind of blurt all of this out. But it wasn’t my fight to make, it was his fight. He choose not to, for whatever reason.

Goldhawk: Why do you think he told various interviewers, and this is somewhat complicated and complex, because the conditions differed between interviewers, why did he seem to indicate that there were no offers? Do you have a theory about that?

Cadman: Really it is speculation on my part, I have to say that off the top-

Goldhawk: Who better to speculate then you?

Cadman: I know, but I have to say that flat-out, he didn’t tell me per se. Um, look at what’s happening right now. All this controversy, and, there is no proof. There’s no paper-trail, there’s no, you know, e-mails to follow. I don’t really know what is going to come out of this. If it’s his word and, I guess in essence, my word and my mom’s word against, I don’t know, the government? And even his own words I guess to a certain degree on some of those interviews. I mean, I just don’t think in some ways it was worth the fight for him, in the fact that there was no proof.

Goldhawk: So he would have made that judgment, that’s what you’re saying? He might have made that judgment, that, what’s the use of bringing this out into the public eye at this point?

Cadman: And if there is no hard evidence, I just can’t see, the kind of letter of the law type guy that he was, knowing full well, you know – it’s just talk. That’s my gut reaction on it.

Goldhawk: Jodi, why are you talking now?

Cadman: I had no intention of talking about it, and in fact this is where it gets very personal and it’s actually a really a difficult time for me in my relationship with my mother. I didn’t know that this was in the book. I found out Wednesday night.

Goldhawk: Had you known it was in the book, would you have, how would you have reacted to it?

Cadman: I would have told my mom you’ve got to be kidding, and I told her this. And I did get a hold of her last night and I honestly think that this was a wrong decision on her part, and my reason for saying that-

Goldhawk: What was the wrong decision? I’m sorry.

Cadman: Moving forward and talking about this. It was my dad’s fight. He chose not to fight it. I don’t think we had a right to come forward when he told me in confidence. That’s just my personal feeling on it. The one thing I cannot fault her for – it is the truth, and I can respect that. It’s just more so the decision to come forward and do it that I’m having a bit of a problem with. On a personal level.

Goldhawk: Well I’m sure your mother is having her own problems politically, is she not?

Cadman: Mmm hmm. Yep. And I’m not so sure why she did this. I did ask her and her answer to me was well, it’s the truth. You know, with all due respect to my mother, I just think that’s a really naive attitude to take.

Goldhawk: Well, it’s out there now isn’t it?

Cadman: Yeah.

Goldhawk: What are your expectations, if any, about what will happen now?

Cadman: I’m not so sure. I would assume everyone’s going to be demanding an inquiry of some sort, and, you know, if they can find some different evidence or whatever you want to call it I’m all for it. I just really don’t think there’s anything there. So I think it’s going to be much ado about nothing and nobody’s winning on this.

Goldhawk: In any event, you know what your father told you.

Cadman: I do, and I can with a clear conscience say I believe him. There would be no reason for him not to tell me the truth.

Goldhawk: Do you do this, speaking out publically, at some expense to yourself do you think?

Cadman: Oh yeah. This has been, it’s been really, as I said difficult for some of the reasons I’ve stated just in regards to – I really didn’t want to do this. When it came forward, and once again even on that first day, I wasn’t going to say anything until people were basically standing up and implying that my mom is lying, or that there’s no element of truth. And so if they’re going to either directly or indirectly call her a liar then I, with the information I have, I felt compelled to come forward, and you have to lump me into the same category them, because I was told the same thing.

Goldhawk: Even though your dad didn’t want you to tell anyone, do you think at this point he’d ne proud of you for what you’ve done?

Cadman: I hope so. Standing up for, you know, and once again I have to come forward with the information I know, no matter how difficult it is. But I would never have volunteered, so to speak.

Goldhawk: Jodi Cadman, thank-you very much for spending some time with is this evening. I appreciate it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Charles Adler: Maybe it's Chuck Cadman's fault

At least that's the impression I get from Charles Adler's "Questions that need to be asked about Cadmanscam." And by the way, I don't like that name for the affair, it seems to imply Chuck Cadman did something wrong.

But on to Adler, and a few of his particularly insulting theories:

3. Could this be a deathbed confection manufactured by the wounded pride of a man who in a moment of high vulnerability was being asked for something very valuable — his vote — and offered nothing more than a pig in the poke?

Ah, so Chuck made it up then, did he? Lashing out from his deathbed with a manufactured fairytle, lying to his family during his last days?

4. Is it possible that Chuck Cadman in his conversations with the Tories (We don't know how many there were. We can only speculate that the Tories couldn't have gone back to the well over and over again and then had two of their chief lieutenants pay him a formal visit unless they thought Cadman was giving them a window of opportunity.) simply couldn't get the Tories to meet his reasonable price?

Forget this stuff about Cadman being a man of honour I suppose, maybe Cadman had a price and the Conservative pockets just weren't deep enough.

5. Is it political correctness or just sloppy sentiments that persuade us that Cadman, a man of great integrity, had no price?

Apperantly someone actually having honour and integrity is a foreign concept to Charles Adler. He just can't process it. Maybe he's running in the wrong crowds.

14. Is it possible that when the Tories told Cadman they couldn't do a serious money transaction because doing so would have exposed them to charges of criminality, the entire episode left him feeling cheap, dirty and violated.

No, I guess Adler does believe in honour and integrity. Maybe Cadman wanted to be bought, but it was the Conservatives that had too much honour and integrity to do the buying.

It seems the right wingers, or at last one of them, have developed a new line of attack, after the other five or ten got shot down as more facts were exposed. Rather than defending Chuck Cadman and implying his wife, daughter and son-in-law are all liars, now they're going after Chuck Cadman himself.

I'd like to think even the Conservative Party won't be stupid enough to pick-up on Adler's theories, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

UPDATE: KNB also has some thoughts on Adler.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Meanwhile, in non-the Cons are calling a Chuck Cadman's widow, daughter and son-in-law liars news

While there has been a lot of focus on the Chuck Cadman story lately, and rightly so, it's also worth noting a number of other stories swirling around Parliament Hill and environs that also don't bode well for the Harper Conservatives

*After initially refusing to confirm his attendance or return committee phone calls, Harper's deputy press secretary Dimitri Soudas did appear before the ethics committee last week to answer questions about his potential involvement with a Conservative fundraiser, a developer in a legal dispute with the government, and other lobbying-related issues.

You'll recall it was questioning on the Soudas affair that bizarely caused Stephen Harper to falsely accuse opposition MPs of making ethnicity-based attacks, accusing them of only persuing the issue because some of those involved happened to be Greek.

In the committee we heard that Soudas came to a dinner meeting with his friend, CPC fundraiser Leo Housakos, and representatives of a company called Alenia North America, which wanted to sell search-and-rescue helicopters to the government:

Alenia said in a statement yesterday that it was looking for a communications firm when it met with Mr. Housakos and Mr. Soudas.

"At a dinner meeting with Mr. Housakos, where he was hoping to secure our business, he surprised us by introducing us to Mr. Soudas. We had absolutely no prior notice that Mr. Soudas would be joining us at the dinner," Alenia said in a statement.

I guess Alenia wasn't suitably impressed that Housakos was able to have a senior staffer from the Prime Minister's Office just happen to pop by their dinner meeting, as they didn't hire Soudas' buddy and went with another communications firm instead.

We also heard more about his intervention in the legal dispute between the government and a politically-connected developer whose potential support would be beneficial to Conservative prospects in Quebec:

On another front, the committee heard that Mr. Soudas intervened more than once in a legal dispute between Ottawa and real estate firm Rosdev Group in 2006. The committee heard that Mr. Soudas and another PMO official organized three meetings with Conservative officials and bureaucrats on the issue, and that Mr. Soudas once called Public Works Minister Michael Fortier directly.

Opposition MPs said the evidence leads them to believe that Mr. Soudas was attempting to win the political support of the Rosdev Group and its influential president, Michael Rosenberg. Mr. Rosenberg, a prominent member of Montreal's Hassidic community, told MPs he is part of a community group that often endorses political candidates in elections.

Liberal MP Mark Holland said that MPs are "left wondering if this is not, 'Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.' "

*Then there's John Baird, CPC environment minister, whose intervention in the Ottawa light rail project in the middle of the Ottawa mayoralty campaign was looked into by the HoC committee on government operations last week. The LRT project was a major issue in the municipal election and as treasury board president at the time Baird, who represents an Ottawa-area riding, in the middle of the election put the government's $200 million contribution to the project on hold unless the next council signed-off, even though the deal was done and had been approved by the previous council.

The intervention was an unexpected bombshell and was damaging for pro-LRT candidates, including Liberal connected Mayor Bob Chiarelli, and a surprise victory followed for anti-LRT mayoral candidate, well-connected conservative Larry O'Brien.

And if O'Brien's name sounds familiar, it should. The Ottawa mayor will be facing criminal charges related to the alleged bribery of one his opponents in that election. He has a court date in April for a scheduled nine-week trial:

While running for mayor, O'Brien is alleged to have offered to help his opponent, Terry Kilrea, get a job on the National Parole Board if Kilrea pulled out of the election race.

After an eight month Ontario Provincial Police investigation, O'Brien was charged with pretending to have influence with the Government of Canada or with a minister of the government, contrary to Sec. 121 of the Criminal Code.

O'Brien was also charged with negotiating an appointment, influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices, contrary to Sec. 125 of the Criminal Code.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

The trial should prove interesting indeed, and John Baird's name has come up here too:

In his affidavit sworn out on Dec. 20, 2006, Kilrea alleges he was offered the parole board job during a meeting last summer with O'Brien at a coffee shop.

"At approximately 2 p.m. later that day (July 5, 2006), O'Brien called to advise that my name had been put forward for an appointment to the National Parole Board,'' says the affidavit.

"When I asked how this was possible, he responded that he had spoken to John Reynolds. He then instructed me to call John Baird, President of the Treasury Board, and to tell him that my name 'was in the queue' for an appointment to the board.'"

Kilrea says when he e-mailed Baird, the minsiter said he knew nothing about an appointment, and while Reynolds, the co-chair of the last CPC election campaign, admitted he's a close friend of O'Brien, he said he knows nothing about this and wasn't involved.

But back to the LRT intervention in the mayoralty race, and the committee hearings. We heard from a that Baird took an unusual interest in the file and indeed, the senior bureaucrat at Treasury Board said he never even saw the Ottawa LRT contract because Baird handled it personally.

It also appears Baird may have gone beyond the scope of Treasury Board's role:

Mr. Baird said at the time that he was intervening to make sure taxpayers were getting proper value for money: the project's price had risen to $900 million, from $600 million when it was first proposed.

Wayne Wouters, who is the most senior bureaucrat at Treasury Board, declined to provide information about how his department made its decisions, saying that such information is a cabinet confidence. But he said that it isn't Treasury Board's job to assess the cost-benefit of such a project.

*It seems Charles McVety has kissed and made up with the Stephen Harper government, Ok, well maybe not kissed. But you'll recall that not that ling ago McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, was very upset with the Harper government for not overturning same sex marriage:

Mr. McVety said the defection of people who have opposed same-sex marriage in the past will not send a good message about the Conservative Party or democracy.

“People feel they have no option, they have five anti-marriage parties and no reason to vote. They get disenchanted and they stay home,” he said.

But from being on the edge of washing his hands of the Conservative Party, McVety is now taking credit for convincing the government to deny tax credits to film productions his followers find objectiobnable:

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office.

"We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."

Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign.

Sure. it's not a ban on same-sex marriage, but still its some red meat for the social-conservative, so-called values wing of the CPC feeling soemwhat abandoned by the Harper government, and important to the CPC as they try to shore-up their far-right flank just in case the Liberals ever decide the time is right for an election.

For more on the guy that claims to now be setting government culture policy visit Red Tory.

*In its never-ending game of substituting democracy and governing for a game of political chicken, after being shot-down in court over its attempt gut the Canadian Wheat Board the Harper government is planning to bring in enabling legislation and is mulling making it a confidence vote:

Proposed legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on western barley sales could be a confidence motion, Canada's agriculture minister suggested Friday after a heated rally in Regina.

Gerry Ritz said the bill will be introduced in Parliament on Monday and the federal government is looking at all options to get it passed.

"If it takes a confidence motion we'll go there," he said.

All three opposition parties have pledged to fight the Conservatives on this. Will the Liberals back down if its made a confidence matter? Bob Rae could not be reached for comment.

*Finally, last week Brian Mulroney also thumbed his nose at the parliamentary ethics committee:

Brian Mulroney says he won’t come back to face further questioning at the House of Commons ethics committee on his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.

A terse posting Tuesday on Mulroney’s website said his lawyer, Guy Pratte, has informed the committee that the former Conservative prime minister is “declining” a request for him to appear later this week.

Yes, this is a former Prime Minsiter of Canada, a member of the Privy Council, esentially saying bite-me to a committee of parliament. He has also changed his mind on the need for a public inquiry, complaining of a “jihad” against him. Classy.

Still, the committee decided to call it a day and recommend the Harper government immediately make good on its promise to call a public inquiry into the affair. However, it appears Harper is dragging his feet:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is looking for excuses to renege on his promise to call a public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, opposition MPs charged Friday.

Liberals and New Democrats levelled the accusation after the government refused to launch the promised inquiry until the House of Commons ethics committee tables its own report on the affair.

The committee has tabled an interim report, but the Conservatives are insisting on waiting for the final report. And, perhaps, until they can find an excuse to back-out of their promise to call an inquiry. CP makes note of the timing and historical paralells:

The government's refusal to expedite the launch of a public inquiry came one day after Brian Mulroney's lawyer said there is no need for a public probe into the former Conservative prime minister's private financial dealings with arms lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber.

Mulroney originally called for an inquiry late last year, prompting Harper, who had initially rejected calls for an inquiry, to reverse himself.

Is Harper again preparing to do an about-face and once again march to Brian Mulroney's drummer on this matter? It's hard not to wonder.

Szabo said the government's refusal to quickly get on with an inquiry suggests Harper may be having second thoughts.

"It would appear that there is some back-pedalling on this matter," Szabo said.

Pat Martin, an NDP member of the ethics committee, said the government is using the committee as "an excuse to delay and stall."

"I think probably the Conservatives are looking for any excuse to avoid a public inquiry at all," said Martin.

"Every day that we deal with the malfeasance associated with the Mulroney administration, it hurts the Harper administration. That's an unavoidable fact.

-----
And yet still we allow this government to continue to govern. It boggles the mind.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers