Liberals' Cadman fixation

Some random observations from watching things in the Commons this afternoon, which is the last real chance to see the tension in earnest for the next couple of weeks. Fridays are kind of a fake days in the chamber and tomorrow Stéphane Dion will be in Vancouver. So this was the last chance to get a sense of tone and political dynamics before Parliament goes on a two-week break.

Independent MP Chuck Cadman voted with the Liberals during a budget confidence vote in the Commons on May 19, 2005.

Many of us have been wondering why the Liberals keep hammering away at the Chuck Cadman story every day in the House. That's the story — for those who've been away — that Conservatives allegedly offered the dying, independent MP a $1 million life-insurance policy in exchange for his vote in May, 2005.

It's an important story, to be sure, but there are other issues out there, not the least of which is the whole question of whether the government interfered in the U.S. elections, which even Harper agreed last week was a better story.

I've come up with three reasons for the Liberal fixation:

1. To prove they're not scared of this libel threat. Harper did formally launch the legal case today against the Liberals for alleging he took part in a bribe. He's suing the party for a whopping $2.5 million but he's not pursuing individual cases he threatened against Dion, Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and Opposition House leader Ralph Goodale.

Harper said repeatedly that his family has been hurt by all this. Why does that sound strange?

2. Because they think there's something there — I got that from a Liberal official today when I asked. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

3. And then, maybe quite significantly, there are the by-elections on Monday. The Liberals aren't worried about the two Toronto by-elections, but the ones in Saskatchewan and Vancouver are worrisome for them. There's a fantastic site, called the Elections Prediction Project, which deems those two by-elections too close to call for Monday.

And where was Cadman from? Yes, Vancouver. And where will Dion be tomorrow? Yes, Vancouver.

Comments

[Darwin O'Connor]

The Obama thing isn't near as good a story as the Cadman story.

1. If the Obama spokesperson did say what it is reported that he said, then it deserved to be leaked. Hypocrisy shouldn't be tolerated even from politicians that you support.

2. The main source for the Cadman story is from a Conservative candidate who would have no reason to lie.

3. The interview with Steve Harper suggests he knew about it and he hasn't denied saying it or given an alternate explanation. It's probably clearest evidence of wrong doing by a Prime Minister since John A. MacDonald's "I must have another $10,000. Will be the last time of calling. Do not fail me. Answer today."

[Not-a-Harper-supporter]

"which even Harper agreed last week was a better story"

Isn't that your answer right there? The NAFTA issue does not implicate Harper and he can easily solve it and look accountable by firing a staff member. Meanwhile, those direct words of Harper's caught on tape in 2005 are pretty damning. How will he explain them? His own words, along with some in Flanagan's book, and the various statements since the story broke, point directly to Harper and the upper echelons of his government. Obviously Harper would rather concentrate on the NAFTA leak. It is a no-brainer. Meanwhile, someone should be holding our Prime Minister accountable for words and circumstances which appear to implicate him in a serious criminal offense. To do less, it to ignore possible corruption in the highest office of Canada. Canada deserves better.

[John W]

Not many Ottawa reports seem to mention that Harper really backed off on his lawsuits dropping Dion, Ignatieff, and Goodale. Not only that, he was afraid the include Ken Dryden who announced he would make the charge outside the house and did.

So he has gotten away with playing the tough guy, while running for cover.

[Betty Dean]

So help me understand why Conservative candidate, Cadman's wife isn't included in Harper's lawsuit. Her (and her children's) public statements are far more damaging to Harper's reputation.

Methinks he doth protest too much!

[Mark-Alan Whittle]

Seems the she said, he said scandal surrounding Chuck Cadman has become the red herring of the century.

If the thought of some insurance underwriter giving a life insurance policy to a man with terminal cancer sounds ridiculous it probably is.

And all the statements attributed in the book, which I have read, are third party hearsay statements that would never stand up in court, or anywhere else for that matter.

Even the author in an interview couldn’t even corroborate the allegations other than to say that is what Mrs. Cadman told him and she wasn’t in the room either. No doubt the conservatives would offer to help Cadman with an election since his riding association was broke and unable to finance a campaign.

All other political party’s including the Liberals bolster riding associations this way. And according to the author, nobody except his legislative assistant Dan Wallace was in the room with Cadman and the representatives from the conservatives so any information flowing from that is mere speculation, or a fabrication since Wallace refuses to say what was said and now denies being in the room at all.

According to the author he deferred to Dona as to what was said. If anyone knows a first-hand account, instead of the heresy of others, it would be Dan Wallace and no other since Mr. Cadman is deceased.

As to Mrs. Cadman running for the conservatives, good luck with that.

Seems this whole scandal is designed to pump up book sales for the author and increase the dividend paid to the Cadman family for their unsubstantiated statements in the book.

What I find most amusing is how the media ran with the story before getting all the facts. Now that down-right irresponsible journalism.

Shameful.

[My Opinion]

Distractions are highly effective in this political game. I agree that the easy distraction of NAFTA and the hiding game of “I’m sorry, I cannot comment while this matter is before the courts” is the best bullet dodging strategy available.
In the statement of claim "Prime Minister Harper at no time knew of Conservative Party bribery," clearly contradicts the taped statement of admission on CBC for the world to hear. I would surely want to dodge that explosive, on-coming bullet!
Vince Dumond
Toronto

[Not-a-Harper-supporter]

Not so many Ottawa reports seem to mention that Harper won't repeat his allegations of tape tampering, included in the libel suit, outside of the the suit (where there is protection) or the House (also protected). When directly challenged by a reporter, Moore denied he had said the tapes were doctored.

[j fotheringham]

It seems the liberal party and especially dion have been the whipping boys for most of the media. To me the problem is Harper, hes not interested in running a country and maybe just maybe with the so called weakness of dion that they did'nt vote with all of the Kings scheming and manipulation we were saved from a King Harper majority. How discouraging and galling for Dion to have to take all negative press. Usually if you give bullies enough time, they defeat themselves

[Bruce J. Wellington]

Dear Ms. Delacourt:

I read your Mar. 15th article “Liberal hopes are with the team”. It covered a critical issue and a big difference with the Harper Conservatives and so was very interesting.

I was struck by the line about “the low-level grumblings about the leader’s listening abilities.” I have seen chronic low-level grumbling rather a lot on the job. As a software engineer working on R & D projects I’m familiar with secretaries and security staff lampooning the high priced R & D’s staff’s ideas. I’ve never actually seen this process reported in print.

A timely and well researched article, I found it a pleasure to read.

Bruce

[Kevin Ames]

The Elections Predictions Project website is far too partisan to be trusted.