Good on Donna for standing up for what's right, even if it may be unpopular with her party. I hope she does lobby her caucus colleagues, and I hope they listen.
The federal government says he has to leave.
But Mikhail Lennikov, the former KGB member holed up in an East Vancouver church to avoid deportation, has at least one Conservative MP who wants him to stay in Canada.
Surrey-North MP Dona Cadman has signed a letter, along with 35 other New Democrat, Liberal and Bloc MPs, pleading with Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan to let Lennikov stay.
Cadman says she thinks it's the right thing to do and may try to lobby her own caucus, "I felt the man has been over here for eleven years. We let him come in, he had, on his application, put that he worked for the [KGB], and this seems to be the big thing that everybody's upset about."
"If they were so upset about it and so against him, they should have stopped him then, not wait eleven years and then come back once he's settled and do this," says Cadman.
That’s because Surrey North, of course, is Chuck Cadman’s old riding. And it’s also the riding where Chuck’s widow, Dona Cadman, is the Conservative candidate. Dona has been much in the news as the story as unfolded around Stephen Harper’s taped comment on “financial considerations” and the Conservative attempts to secure Chuck’s vote to bring down the Paul Martin government a few years back. Dona has been caught in the middle, trying to reconcile her statements on the record and those of her daughter and in the Tom Zytaruk book with her desire to remain a Conservative candidate and be loyal to the cause, leading to some interestingly creative statements and affidavits like the recent depends on your definition of a portico filing.
We’re losing one interesting dynamic with Priddy leaving the race; she and Dona Cadman were longtime friends, and Cadman actually endorsed Priddy in the last election. That’s a favour I doubt Priddy will be returning, by the way.
It will be interesting to watch this race unfold now though with Priddy’s departure. I suspect a lot of her large margin of victory in 2006 had to do with her personal popularity (helped perhaps the Cadman endorsement), and I doubt a new NDP candidate will be able to hold all that vote.
At first blush this would seem to be a big boost for the Cadman campaign. What I wonder though, and I’m not on the ground in the riding so I can only speculate, but I wonder what impact this whole Cadman affair is having on Dona’s chances in the riding. Chuck was extremely popular and I’d have said before that she was a virtual shoe-in, or at least a coin-toss with Priddy. But as the controversy around the vote wooing has unfolded, and with Dona caught in the middle seemingly contradicting herself while trying to prop-up the Conservative libel case, could this be hurting her credibility, and her support? I don’t know, but its worth watching.
The Liberals finished a distant third in this riding in the last campaign. I’m not sure if they’ve nominated a candidate yet or not. But with Priddy’s departure, and the controversy around Dona, there may be a chance for the Liberals to sneak-up the middle here with the right candidate. It’s a challenge, but as I said things are getting more interesting in Surrey-North.
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.
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.
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.
It seems like Stephen Harper plans to go ahead with its libel lawsuit against Stephane Dion et al. Or at least he says he does, he hasn't filed anything yet. But I believe him. I looked straight into his eyes and I saw he was telling the truth. So to court we go, some time in the next few years anyway.
The Conservative bloggers and commenters have been all a twitter since the libel gauntlet was dropped about the discovery process, where they expect to subpoena all kinds of juicy stuff from the Liberals. Like Pierre Trudeau's little black book. We also know who was behind the grassy knoll and trust me, you'll be surprised.
They forget though that discovery goes both ways.
For example, if this case proceeds I'll be very interested to see all e-mails, faxes, phone records and other corespondence between Ottawa and Surrey, as well as the sworn testimony of all parties involved, that led up to the issuance of this statement:
March 3, 2008 Personal Statement by Dona Cadman
I’m a little bit surprised at the level of reaction to the disclosures in Tom Zytaruk’s book and I guess that’s probably because it was put to rest in my mind, when I discussed the matter with Stephen Harper, 2 ½ years ago. At that time, I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million dollar insurance policy offer, that upset Chuck so much.
He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes. He said, yes he’d had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he’d told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck.
From that point forward…. I didn’t regard it as a “Party” initiative, but rather; the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals…. whose identity, Chuck never revealed to me.
It all comes back to my conversation with the Prime Minister…. 2 ½ years ago. I want to be perfectly clear in that regard. Chuck liked, respected and trusted Stephen Harper. I like, respect and trust Stephen Harper. If I didn’t believe in my heart, that he was telling me the truth…. I wouldn’t be running as the Conservative Candidate for Surrey North.
Dona Cadman
Dido all e-mail, corespondance, fax, phone records and sworm testimony of those involved in the lead-up to this statement (H/T Quito):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement from Mr. Dan Wallace FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 2, 2008
Today Mr. Wallace issued the following statement:
“The May meeting date included in a soon to be released book about Chuck Cadman is inaccurate. Unfortunately, because of that error, some media are now reporting that there were two meetings, one on May 17 and another on May 19, 2005, between party officials - Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan - and Chuck Cadman. For the record, there was only the one meeting between my former employer, Chuck Cadman, with Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan and it took place in his private office on May 19th. As I have stated publicly last week, I was outside that room and not privy to the details.”
Were the issuers of these statements contacted by the PMO or a CPC official prior to the issuance of these statements? If so, who? What did they discuss? Where were these statements drafted? By whom? Were revisions suggeted? By whom? What were they? And so on. All perfectly valid questions for discovery, and answers will be legally required and compelled, and given under oath.
Another day, loads more interesting revelations in the Cadman affair. It’s not looking good for the Harper Conservatives, to say the least.
Will this be a scandal that breaks outside of political geekdom into real Canada? The jury is still out, I think, but the potential is there. Today at work two colleagues with no interest in politics brought it up with me unprompted, and both were disgusted. And as Scott mentions a high-profile, U.S. blogger has picked-up on the story as well.
So, interesting times. I’ll try to put together a detailed recap of the day’s events tonight, as there is work to be done. In the mean time though, you can get the latest from Kady here and here, plus Steve.
Also, while the Conservatives are falsely chastising the Liberals for smearing a deceased Chuck Cadman (while they smear his widow), The Wingnuterer has a selection of comments from the folks at Small Dead Animals about Chuck Cadman right after he passed away from his battle with cancer. It’s a must-read post, and it’s disturbing. This comment is pretty representative:
Good riddance. Too bad you couldn't collect on the graft the Libs promised you in exchange for your vote, eh Chucky? Hahhhhhh. Posted by: Sean at July 9, 2005 10:25 PM
Disgusting. As I said, more tonight. But before I go, as pissed-off as I am with the Liberal Party these days, I wanted to share reason #234 why I’ll probably never join the NDP: the wonder that is Pat Martin.
UPDATE: For the actual audio of Harper's interview with the reporter, where he confirms an offer was made to Chuck with his knowledge on behalf of the party, click to this story and scroll down for the audio.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
The shocking allegations last night that the Conservative Party allegedly tried to bribe an MP dying of cancer with a $1 million insurance policy have reverberated like a shockwave around the media and the political blogsphere today. Well, at least the progressive half.
The issue dominated question period today, some of Stephane Dion's questioning is online here:
Michael Ignatieff also asked a very good question:
The Conservatives start by saying Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley met with Cadman the day of the infamous confidence vote to offer him "campaign assistance" should he run for them. This seems lacking in credibility to me. Cadman was in very poor health at this point, was he really going to run again?
Another part of the Conservative line has been that there was no offer of anything (except campaign assistance I suppose, their line is 'evolving') but they were just making Chuck aware of the benefits of being a Conservative MP. Here's where I have problems with that line. Chuck had not that long before been an MP in whatever they were calling the party at the time, so wouldn't be be aware of the privleges of caucus membership?
Then there is the surfacing of a CTV interview with Chuck Cadman on the day of the infamous confidence vote. Radwanski has a partial transcript:
Duffy: Chuck, earlier tonight Craig Oliver reported on our network special that the Conservatives were prepared do offer you an unopposed nomination if you would vote with them, and also help with campaign funding and so on. Was that offer actually made?
Cadman: Well there was some talk about that. As far as the unopposed nomination, you know, the discussions did come up. The talk did come up, yeah.
Duffy: So they were making an offer to you, and in the end you refused?
Cadman: Yes. Well, that was the only offer on anything that I had from anybody. So there was no offers on the table up till that point about anything from any party.
That interview was a big part of the Conservative defence in QP today, and it does raise some key questions. The Conservatives say why don't you take Chuck's word for it, there was no bribe or anything, he denied it himself so let's move on already.
Now that I've read at least this partial transcript, it seems like his comments are open to multiple interpatations. Is he saying the unopposed nomination was the only offer made? Maybe. Or was the unopposed nomination possibly party of a package offer, and he's saying that offer, whatever offer they made to him, was the only offer he recieved. I don't know. And he's unfortunently unable to offer clarification.
The Harper administration replied to question after question in the Commons on Thursday with one simple defence: Mr. Cadman gave an interview the night of the vote to CTV, in which, the Conservatives say, he denied being offered any deal.
“End of story,” says government spokesguy James Moore, himself a BC MP.
Not exactly true. For those who have since heard Mr. Cadman’s exact, and carefully chosen words, he says he “received no offers from any other party.” He was not asked about a financial incentive to vote with the Conservatives. He was not asked about a bribe or an insurance policy. His clip was shortened by Moore to just “received no offers.”
Mike Duffy: “Can I share something with you, which I haven’t shared publicly until now? … And that is in private conversations with me, Chuck Cadman told me, that there was no way he was going to vote against the Martin government, because he was concerned of the potential impact it might have on the insurance settlement for his wife Dona. In other words: if he died while a sitting MP, Chuck told me, ‘that would double or virtually double the payout to his widow’ and he didn’t ‘dare take a risk forcing an election’, even if he was confident of being elected, for fear of some legal hassle involving an insurance payout …”
I'm going to throw this in here, because it could prove to be a key point. Duffy was trying to tone down the story, offering up a conversation he had with Cadman, wherein he said he didn't want to vote against the budget, for fear he would lose his seat in an election and the insurance he had as an MP because of it. Duffy said Cadman was concerned that he would die and his wife would suffer.
What nobody has picked up, Duffy actually connects some dots here. If Cadman was concerned about his insurance as an MP, then it what better way to allay his fears in voting with the Cons, than to offer him assurance on that score. Insurance was on Cadman's mind, according to Duffy, which puts the offer into complete context.
Exactly, Duffy's comments lend credence to Dona Cadman's story, that a life insurance policy was offered. If he votes with the CPC the house falls and he loses his life insurance through the HoC. Harper has been quoted as saying the meeting was to remove any financial disencentive to his voting with the CPC. A private insurance policy to replace his HoC one would have done that. It's the only theory that makes sense. An uncontested nomination or help with lawn signs makes no sense, there's no way he was going to run again.
Back to the old Cadman clip. Let's accept he was saying an uncontested nomination was the only thing on offer. How do we square that with the allegations by his wife, Conservative candidate Dona Cadman? That gets difficult. I can only speculate. Maybe he tells his wife things he doesn't tell the national media. Maybe he didn't want to spend the last few months of his life at the centre of a political circus. Or maybe, for some unknown reason, he lied to his wife. Seems unlikely.
The only other possibility would seem to be that Dona Cadman is lying. That's the only conclusion left to us if we're to believe the Conservative story here. Stephen Harper is saying Chuck Cadman's widow is making it all up, it would seem. What possible motivation would she have for making up a story that the party she wants to represent in the House of Commons tried to bribe her dying husband? It boggles the mind.
And if this is really what the Conservtives would have us believe, why is she still a candidate for their party? Are they going to withdraw her nomination? Will she then run as an independant and beat them? Wouldn't that be ironic.
Dona Cadman, for her part, is sticking to her story. She talked to CTV today, Steve has a transcript.
It also appears there were two meetings two days apart, one in Ottawa and one in Surrey. The Conservatives only discuss the one in Ottawa with Flanagan and Finley, we don't know who represented the party at the meeting in Surrey, and the Conservatives haven't acknwledged it. It appears they're treading a very careful line there. Why?
It seems the deeper I get into this, the more questions I have and the more confused I get. Speaking of questions, Radwanski has some:
*As a Conservative candidate (er, for now), what possible motive could there be for Dona Cadman to make any of this up?
*That being said, if a straight-shooter like Cadman was furious about being approached with a bribe, why wouldn't he come forward himself with the story?
*How does it make any sense, as per the PMO's account, that there was any serious discussion of covering Cadman's campaign costs for the election that would have ensued from his helping to bring down the government? Suffering from advanced cancer, it was an effort for him even to get to Ottawa for the vote. Was he really considering running again?
*What kind of insurance company is prepared to give a million-dollar policy to a man who's dying of cancer?
*If you're a Liberal Leader who apparently had to be talked out of forcing an election over an inoffensive budget, what will you be thinking if this story has any legs?
All good questions. I'd also like to know who represented the party at that meeting in Surrey, what exactly was put on the table, and what exactly was discussed. And if Dona Cadman's allegations are true, why is she still running for them? If there really is nothing to this, I have to say the Conservatives aren't doing a very good job of ending this.
I really think it's going to take a thurough investigation with supoena power to get to the bottom of this mess. It appears the ethics committee is going to get into it, and given the seriousnesses of possible attempted inducement of an MP's vote, the RCMP should also look closely into this.
The widow of former B.C. MP Chuck Cadman says two Conservative Party officials offered her husband a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote to bring down the Liberal government in May of 2005.
If these allegations aren't true the Conservatives will be calling his widow Dona Cadman, their own Conservative candidate in Surrey-North, a liar:
Dona Cadman, who is now running for the Conservatives in the Vancouver-area riding of Surrey North, was not in the office at the time. But she says her husband was furious when he returned to their apartment. "Chuck was really insulted," she said in a telephone interview with The Globe Wednesday. "He was quite mad about it, thinking they could bribe him with that."
Stephen Harper, of course, is running away and professing to have seen nothing, know nothing. As if some random party hacks would have cooked this up on their own?
Sandra Buckler, a spokeswoman for Mr. Harper, said Wednesday that her boss never directed any party official to make any kind of financial arrangement with Mr. Cadman.
Of course not. Stephen Harper always seems to manage not to get his hands dirty. It's always someone else's fault. He did't do anything. Liberals bad!
If proven, these allegations are damning. And given the modus operandi of the Conservative/Alliance party, it's not hard to believe. They've bought-off people before, even if some of them have had to go to court to get the deals upheld. Harper denied there was a deal with Alan Riddell until the party finally admited it in court.
I don't know the legalities of this, I'll leave that to the lawyers. But allegedly offering monatery consideration in exchange for the vote of a Member of Parliament? Clearly this needs to be investigated.
And whatever the legalities, morally its just plain repugnant. Going to a dying man and allegedly offering him a $1 million insurance policy in exchange for his vote? It's beyond repugnant. It's goulish.
Just when you think you've seen it all. If anyone in the Conservative Party of Canada actually believed their rhetoric about cleaning up politics, they have to be looking in the mirror tonight.
