Cadman allegedly Offered Money

Wilber · February 29, 2008

And what about Cadman's wife today? Is she lying?

Good question, one of them was. I saw two interviews where he said neither party offered him anything. One question was "and Harper didn't" Answer "no".

Borg · February 29, 2008

If it does cost him his job, canuckleheads are no where near as smart as they think they are.

Borg

August1991 · February 29, 2008

OTTAWA–The following is a transcript of a portion of author Tom Zytaruk's tape of a 2005 interview with Stephen Harper, then leader of the Opposition, for his biography of the late Chuck Cadman:
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 I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"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."

Toronto Star

What's the big deal?

And why do we have another thread on this topic?

FTA Lawyer · February 29, 2008

The RCMP need to investigate this I'm afraid...with transparency for public oversight (which itself may just be a pipe-dream).

There are a number of problems I have with this whole story...from both sides. Firstly, everyone needs to get over the hang up about the actuarial soundness of the "insurance policy". If this offer of "insurance" was made, and that's a big if as far as I'm concerned, I'm pretty sure the "underwriter" was going to be the Conservative Party of Canada.

Come on people, lawyers self-insure, most governments self-insure, many major corporations self-insure for certain risks. Bottom line is if the CPC had a million bucks in the bank, they could just pay it to him...they don't need to actually venture out into the ultra-highly regulated insurance industry to make this promise. Calling it an "insurance policy" would just be euphamistic.

But here's the problem with this whole allegation...if Chuck Cadman was furious that his integrity would be insulted with such an offer, and his integrity was beyond reproach to the extent that he would honorably reject a million dollars being given to his wife and kids, then why would he lie to the country on national television and say no such offer was made? How does that make sense? Why not trumpet his righteous indignation then?

Next, why do so many people assume that the only way for the story to be false is if the wife is lying? She could just be wrong. After all, it is clear that she was not a witness to any such meeting or offer. At best, the story in the book is triple hearsay (and fabulous for sales and royalties for the author) reduced to double hearsay if the wife continues to stand by it.

Here's the big trouble for Harper though...he appears to have known about the meeting and some type of offer, and that such offer was being made in the context of addressing financial concerns of the then-dying Cadman.

I'm not sure what others will think, but to me, the biggest troublesome quote for Harper is this one:

"The offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election," Harper says.

Here's the relevant Criminal Code section:

Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

( directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

Consent of Attorney General

(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.

Criminal Code s. 119

In my opinion, when the consequence of an MP's vote is dissolution of Parliament, and therefore, financial consequences to him, preventing him from voting to prop up the government by offering to "replace the financial considerations he might lose due to an election" is a blatant offer of valuable consideration in respect of his official capacity.

My opinion does not change for the better for Harper if the offer was only for an uncontested nomination in the next election...to me that is a blatant offer of an office or employment in respect of Cadman's official capacity.

I am bright enough to know that we don't yet know everything about this whole issue, but there absolutely needs to be a full RCMP investigation...because there are a number of versions of what happened here (some of which I'm apparently hearing in Harper's own taped words) which would squarely fit within the Criminal Code definition of bribery.

FTA

Law&Order · February 29, 2008

As I was watching the news last night, I too wondered about the "insurance". And what I heard his wife and his daughter say was that they would receive a "death benefit" of $1 million after Chuck's death directly from the CPC. The CPC knows that offering an inducement is illegal. However, offering it to a widow after a death would hardly make the news. I think the RCMP do need to investigate this since we all know that the CPC were desperate to take the government down over this issue and that Cadman's vote was pivotal.

ANY OFFER seems to be controversial and the RCMP need to tell us if this was just a stupid mistake, or an attempt to bribe an MP to vote a certain way. I also agree that this doesn't look good on Harper. He knew about the meetings and the calls and even the attempts to get Cadman's vote. If his two party members added a financial offer he didn't know about, then he needs to reveal who those two people are and let the RCMP investigate them too.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Law&Order

Riverwind · February 29, 2008

In my opinion, when the consequence of an MP's vote is dissolution of Parliament, and therefore, financial consequences to him, preventing him from voting to prop up the government by offering to "replace the financial considerations he might lose due to an election" is a blatant offer of valuable consideration in respect of his official capacity.

Worst case scenario:

Cadman: I would really like to support the motion but I will lose my pension if the government falls.

Conservatives: I here is an arrangement that will allow you to make a decision based on your principals rather than financial considerations.

Does it consistitute a bribe under the strict definition of the term? Yes

Is it morally wrong according to the strict definition of the term? No

I suspect the real issue here is the compensation system for MPs which creates perverse financial incentives for them. Cadman's case was unique and he should have been able to get an exception to any pension plan rules.

Hypothetical question: What if Cadman tried to get an exception to the rules but the Liberals blocked it? Wouldn't that be morally equivalent to extortion (threat of penalties if one did not conform)? I would say yes but I realize the legal case for extortion does not exist.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Riverwind

Law&Order · February 29, 2008

Worst case scenario:
Cadman: I would really like to support the motion but I will lose my pension if the government falls.

Conservatives: I here is an arrangement that will allow you to make a decision based on your principals rather than financial considerations.

Does it consistitute a bribe under the strict definition of the term? Yes

Is it morally wrong according to the strict definition of the term? No

I suspect the real issue here is the compensation system for MPs which creates perverse financial incentives for them. Cadman's case was unique and he should have been able to get an exception to any pension plan rules.

Hypothetical question: What if Cadman tried to get an exception to the rules but the Liberals blocked it? Wouldn't that be morally equivalent to extortion (threat of penalties if one did not conform)? I would say yes but I realize the legal case for extortion does not exist.

Using "make believe" distracts from the real issue.

What I find odd is that Harper asks "is this going to be published?" and then goes on to say the the two guys that visited Cadman were making a financial offer to cover his expenses of another election. Yet we all know Cadman didn't have much time left, and likely would have never made it through another election. What does Harper know and will he be willing to tell the truth during an investigation? My bet is he will fail the test.

Wild Bill · February 29, 2008

But here's the problem with this whole allegation...if Chuck Cadman was furious that his integrity would be insulted with such an offer, and his integrity was beyond reproach to the extent that he would honorably reject a million dollars being given to his wife and kids, then why would he lie to the country on national television and say no such offer was made? How does that make sense? Why not trumpet his righteous indignation then?
My opinion does not change for the better for Harper if the offer was only for an uncontested nomination in the next election...to me that is a blatant offer of an office or employment in respect of Cadman's official capacity.

I am bright enough to know that we don't yet know everything about this whole issue, but there absolutely needs to be a full RCMP investigation...because there are a number of versions of what happened here (some of which I'm apparently hearing in Harper's own taped words) which would squarely fit within the Criminal Code definition of bribery.

FTA

Ah, but the purpose served by an RCMP investigation would NOT be to uncover the truth! It would be to stage a circus, long and drawn out, to discredit the ruling Tories. The Liberals are desperate to involve the Tories in any and all scandals, to any degree. The strategy seems to be that if they heap enough manure on their enemy people will stop smelling the Adscam scandal on themselves. This is politics, not law, after all. Why do you think this whole incident was revealed immediately before a likely call to an election?

There certainly would not have been an offer for an uncontested nomination. Chuck and the whole world knew he was dying and would never last long enough.

It MAY have been possible that Chuck was out of pocket for campaign expenses dating back to the time of his nomination, before he was forced to run as an independent. There may have been an offer to resolve a dispute. This is done all the time by all parties, such as when a party leader needs a seat and they bump out an incumbent from a "safe" riding. There are real financial losses to such an act and compensation is a standard approach.

No, more and more it looks to me like one of those stories that have just enough truth to generate a great deal of embarrassing political reaction for a long enough period of time to affect electoral fortunes. The Liberals are past masters at this game. In my own riding last election there was a great deal of lingering animosity from the Sheila Copps camp over Tony Valeri beating her for the Liberal nomination. She had promised to help his opponents. A story conveniently broke implying that he had committed some sort of illegality or bad faith in a house purchase, A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION!

After the election, details came out that showed it was no big deal. Except to Tony, who had lost by a narrow margin.

Riverwind · February 29, 2008

Using "make believe" distracts from the real issue.

The only "facts" we have are cryptic statements from Harper and a bizarre statement from the widow. Anyone who speculates on what "really" happened is engaging in "make believe".

In fact, any scenario that paints what happened as an outright bribe make zero sense. The people involved are not stupid people. They wanted to fight an election on corruption and even if they were cynical opportunitsts they could have never trusted Cadman to keep such an offer secret if he turned them down.

The only scenario (other than the widow is lying/deluded) that makes any sense is the scenario I painted above where the Conservatives convinced themselves that Cadman was already making his decision based on financial incentives and they needed to level the playing field so Cadman could make the decision based on principals rather that money. I realize that it does not make a difference from a legal perspective but it makes a huge difference from a political perspective.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Riverwind

Topaz · February 29, 2008

Well, today the Yahoo news is reporting that Harper admits to a journalist three years ago that yes, they did offer financial aid and told the two officials to go with caution. The journalist talked to Harper outside the residences of Cadman after he has passed and had stopped in to see his widow and has it all on tape. Now, how is Harper going to get out of this one?

Keepitsimple · February 29, 2008

The big splash is about the supposed million dollar Insurance policy. It's already been stated that you simply cannot get such a policy if you are already diagnosed as a terminally ill cancer patient. Having said that, it appears likely that the conversations dealt more with somehow maintaining Cadman's MP insurance if the Government fell. That would be done by letting him run unopposed in the resulting election and thereby regaining his MP status. What probably ticked him off....and what he probably told the Conservative armtwisters was "Don't you guys get it? - I'll be dead before I finish the campaign!!!". Who knows how he communicated all that frustration to his wife......but you just can't get an insurance policy like that - and Chuck Cadman would know as well as anyone.

Funny how this story "leaked" just before the budget vote. I wonder if the Liberals will think this is their big chance - since someone has obviously intended it to be that way.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Keepitsimple

Topaz · February 29, 2008

Maybe the "media war room" is taking look how the public feels about this? I think it would be worst for Harper after saying he was going to clean up the corruption but again, Mulroney said the same thing when he was running for his second term.

Wild Bill · February 29, 2008

Toronto Star
What's the big deal?

And why do we have another thread on this topic?

It's a lot harder to generate scandal against the Tories than the Liberals. Liberal supporters will have to knock themselves out to make this one stick.

It was much easier for the Tories when they were in opposition. Adscam, Shawinigate...these were REAL scandals!

Drea · February 29, 2008

If it does cost him his job, canuckleheads are no where near as smart as they think they are.
Borg

Isn't "canuckleheads" against the forum rules?

Some of us actually happen to LIKE the country we live in and don't appreciate the insult. Thank you in advance for not using it anymore.

Cheers!

Wild Bill · February 29, 2008

Funny how this story "leaked" just before the budget vote. I wonder if the Liberals will think this is their big chance - since someone has obviously intended it to be that way.

You know, I'm not saying that the Tories might not be guilty. I don't think it likely but after all, they're politicians, for Pete's sake!

I just find it hilarious to hear Liberals accuse OTHERS of scandal! :lol:

guyser · February 29, 2008

The big splash is about the supposed million dollar Insurance policy. It's already been stated that YOU AND I simply cannot get such a policy if you are already diagnosed as a terminally ill cancer patient.

Fixed it for ya.

Funny how this story "leaked" just before the budget vote. I wonder if the Liberals will think this is their big chance - since someone has obviously intended it to be that way.

Politics , every side would do exactly the same.

BubberMiley · February 29, 2008

My only question is that, now that the tape of Harper confessing his knowledge of it has come out, how long will the Conservatives continue to try to use Cadman's apparent decision to not accuse his former colleagues of bribery as proof that it didn't happen?

And how long can they blame the Liberals when it's a candidate of their own party making the accusation?

Topaz · February 29, 2008

My only question is that, now that the tape of Harper confessing his knowledge of it has come out, how long will the Conservatives continue to try to use Cadman's apparent decision to not accuse his former colleagues of bribery as proof that it didn't happen?
And how long can they blame the Liberals when it's a candidate of their own party making the accusation?

Well your answer is the Cons are now saying that the tape doesn't sound right, that it may have been doctored and is going to get it looked at it. It was brought up in "question Period" today that the members of Parliament all have life insurance through a certain company and the insurance policy could become reality. When this goes to the ethics committee next week, perhaps they should call Diane Findley as well, I'm

sure Diane and her hubby do talk shop. C-PAC always show the question period twice a day so I'll have to try to catch again tonight.

Wilber · February 29, 2008

The big splash is about the supposed million dollar Insurance policy. It's already been stated that you simply cannot get such a policy if you are already diagnosed as a terminally ill cancer patient. Having said that, it appears likely that the conversations dealt more with somehow maintaining Cadman's MP insurance if the Government fell. That would be done by letting him run unopposed in the resulting election and thereby regaining his MP status. What probably ticked him off....and what he probably told the Conservative armtwisters was "Don't you guys get it? - I'll be dead before I finish the campaign!!!". Who knows how he communicated all that frustration to his wife......but you just can't get an insurance policy like that - and Chuck Cadman would know as well as anyone.

I think this might be closer to the truth. The idea that someone would have written a new life insurance policy on Cadman at that point is a not starter. However, I assume that every MP has life insurance as part of their benefit package as long as they are in office. In the companies which had it that I have worked for, it was either two or three times my yearly salary. This might have presented a real personal problem for him considering his medical condition if the government fell. If the election was held before he died and he was not well enough to run and win again, any coverage he had as an MP might would no longer be there. It would belong to the MP which replaced him. Perhaps something was offered to help remove that concern.

Shakeyhands · February 29, 2008

Well your answer is the Cons are now saying that the tape doesn't sound right, that it may have been doctored and is going to get it looked at it.

Well, the CPC would be experts in this field.......

jdobbin · February 29, 2008

What's the big deal?

I think the big deal is if money was offered as an incentive to vote for the Tories. You seems to think it was okay.

Edited February 29, 2008 by jdobbin

jdobbin · February 29, 2008

Funny how this story "leaked" just before the budget vote. I wonder if the Liberals will think this is their big chance - since someone has obviously intended it to be that way.

This isn't a Liberal conspiracy. You think this was all cooked up in a Liberal caucus meeting? You think they are working in secret with Dona Cadman, Conservative candidate?

Edited February 29, 2008 by jdobbin

jdobbin · February 29, 2008

You know, I'm not saying that the Tories might not be guilty. I don't think it likely but after all, they're politicians, for Pete's sake!
I just find it hilarious to hear Liberals accuse OTHERS of scandal!

It wasn't the Liberals who made the accusation. See Dona Cadman. Conservative candidate.

eyeball · February 29, 2008

I find it interesting that Dona Cadman is still a Conservative candidate, she must see the party as being more important than the people its comprised of. The party in other words is just a thing, its what people have been doing with it that counts.

In my view this adds volumes to what has been said about the integrity of the Cadmans. The Conservatives should count themselves fortunate to have such people willing to put principle before party. Too bad for them the scum rose to the top instead of the cream. Too bad for all of us really because this affair can only increase the number of people who view politics through an increasingly cynical lens.

Regulus de Leo · February 29, 2008

It wasn't the Liberals who made the accusation. See Dona Cadman. Conservative candidate.

Her accusation makes no sense. What is lacking is the 'ring of truth' to these allegations.

Why would the conservatives be so stupid as to make such an offer?

Why would an insurance company offer $1 million life insurance to a dying man? (they don't operate that way)

Why would Chuck Cadman not have made it public before he died? (More than that he made it clear that no such offer was made). He had nothing to lose did he?

Why would Mrs Cadman stand as a candidate in a party that would make such an offer especially if as she says her husband was upset with such an offer an outright rejected it?

It doesn't add up.