• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Chuck Cadman Merged Thread

Sorry Tony, this isn't new. This has already been through the wash, there still is no proof of wrongdoing. I may be wrong, but I don't think there's anything illegal about party supporters, or the party, helping out financially with a campaign. If that's the best they can do, they've already lost this one.

In an e-mail to The Canadian Press, Sandra Buckler said the tape - which the publisher of the book was selling for $500 a copy - is an excerpt of a longer interview between the prime minister and Zytaruk.

"We are deeply concerned that an edited excerpt of a taped conversation between Mr. Harper and the book's author is being bootlegged for five hundred bucks a pop by the author. We call on the author to provide Canadians with a complete, unedited audio copy of the author's conversation - from start to finish - with Mr. Harper."

These two paragraphs say more about what this is all about, than anything else that's been said on the whole subject.
 
Sent along by dog walker:

Another piece of the puzzle came up on Mike Duffy live on CTV news net last night.

One of the perks of the MP’s job is their life insurance policy. If one passes away as a sitting MP there is quite a large insurance payout. An MP who is no longer sitting in parliament can keep their life insurance, however, the premiums go up and the payout is cut in half.  If Paul Martin’s liberal government had being defeated and the parliament dissolved then Mr Cadman would no longer have being a sitting MP and his family would have lost out on the MP’s insurance policy.

The piece can be found on the link below, under Mike Duffy Live on the right of the page. Click on the video piece entitled “Mike Duffy Live: MP James Moore Discuss Harper’s Involvement in Cadman Controversy”

http://www.ctv.ca/politics
 
... and from Yrys:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080229/national/cadman_life_insurance

Near impossible to get $1 million insurance policy for terminally ill: industry



Fri Feb 29, 5:00 PM

By Brenda Bouw, The Canadian Press


VANCOUVER - Finding a life insurer to give you a $1 million policy when you are terminally ill is next to impossible, insurance experts say.

But it is the claim that just such a policy was on offer to Chuck Cadman in 2005 as the late MP was dying from skin cancer and the government of the day was teetering on the brink of defeat that has rocked Ottawa.

"If you are terminally ill, you are uninsurable (for $1 million)," said Ken Hunter, a partner with Toronto-based Hunter McCorquodale Inc., which offers life insurance for "hard to insure" clients.

"In theory, there is a price you could charge, but the reality is the price would be more than $1 million. If I'm the insurer, I need more than $1 million to cover the cost of doing business."

While there are some companies that will sell policies to clients without a medical exam, Hunter said the benefits would never reach $1 million.

"I can't conceive of why anybody would suggest that might be possible," Hunter said.

Gerald Cilliers, who has his own independent financial services firm in Langley, B.C., said there are two ways of applying for insurance: through the traditional underwriting process where you answer detailed questions and undergo medical tests; or with guaranteed issue, where there are limited questions and no medical required, but rates are often much higher.

You can also get insurance, through a bank or other financial institution, to cover future mortgage payments or other obligations in the event of death. This is called underwriting on claim, where limited questions are asked when you apply, and the main assessment and investigation only takes place on claim.

However, all of these options would still be a barrier to someone getting a policy as rich as $1 million with a terminal illness, Cilliers said.

Wendy Hope, a spokesperson at the Ottawa-based Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, said insuring a terminally ill patient would be "highly unusual, if not impossible."

"When you apply for insurance you are required to provide accurate and complete information on the application, which typically includes a health questionnaire. The purpose of insurance is to mitigate against risk of an unanticipated tragic event ... to provide financial security to you beneficiaries," said Hope.

"On that basis, any individual who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness wouldn't qualify."

Hope said the industry is puzzled by the claim that a $1 million life insurance policy was offered to Cadman weeks before his death.

Cadman died on July 9, 2005, at age 57, after a two-year battle with skin cancer and about five weeks after his vote in a confidence motion in the House of Commons enabled the minority Liberals to survive in power, helping avert an election at that time.

Cadman's widow, Dona, says in a book about her husband to be released next month that he told her two Conservative Party officials offered him a $1 million life insurance policy if he voted with the Tories and against the Liberal government. Cadman's daughter says her father also told her this.

Ryan Sparrow, a spokesman for the Conservative party, denies those allegations, and he adds that Cadman wouldn't have been eligible for life insurance under the party's plan.

"Members of parliament aren't eligible for life insurance form the Conservative party of Canada," Sparrow said.

Cadman would have been covered for life insurance as an MP, a job he held for more than six years prior to his death, which meant he was eligible for full retirement, survivor and life insurance benefits.

The basic life insurance policy for MPs, paid for by the government, is relatively modest, worth twice their last full year's salary - starting around $300,000.

When MPs leave politics, whether voluntarily or in an election loss, they can convert this life insurance to a private plan, but must pay their own premiums.

"You can make this conversion without undergoing a medical examination and regardless of your state of health," says the MP's guide.

They have 60 days from the date of the election to make the conversion.

-With files from Bruce Cheadle in Ottawa
 
Unlocked for now.

Please stick to the topic, keep it civil, leave wild unsubstantiated claims out of it. Next time it will be locked for good.

Thanks in advance.

Army.ca Staff
 
http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/the-rest-of-the-audio-tape.html

Our friend Ezra has a good opinion on the subject at hand.

  he rest of the audio tape
By Ezra Levant on February 29, 2008 10:03 PM | Permalink | |

Can the late Chuck Cadman do what Stephane Dion can't, and end the Liberals' annus horribilis? Liberal MP Garth Turner thinks so. He is even talking about bringing down the government. (But then Turner does that from time to time.)

Sometimes an oasis in a desert turns out to be a mirage, though. This passage in a news story caught my eye:

In an e-mail to The Canadian Press, Sandra Buckler said the tape - which the publisher of the book was selling for $500 a copy - is an excerpt of a longer interview between the prime minister and Zytaruk.

"We are deeply concerned that an edited excerpt of a taped conversation between Mr. Harper and the book's author is being bootlegged for five hundred bucks a pop by the author. We call on the author to provide Canadians with a complete, unedited audio copy of the author's conversation - from start to finish - with Mr. Harper."

Those facts should be ringing alarm bells. An edited clip of a longer tape? We've seen how that can end. And the $500 a pop cash grab for that clip should be a flashing light. We all have to make a living; that's part of book-selling hype. But for a journalist to sell audio clips for $500 seems a touch like, well, selling stereo equipment out of the back of a van. If there's nothing fishy here, why the hurry?

It was odd to hear the radio interview with author Tom Zytaruk -- he didn't have basic facts about his own allegations. He seemed wobbly and unprofessional and unbriefed; surprised, even. He looked the same on TV. And that was before I'd thought of the rest of the tape, or heard about the $500-a-pop, get-it-while-the-getting's-good action. I'd sure like to hear the rest of Zytaruk's tape -- not just of the rest of his conversation with Stephen Harper, but his conversation with Mrs. Cadman, the source of the rumour. For that is another piece that doesn't quite fit here: Dona Cadman is herself a candidate for Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Why would she run for a party that had tried to bribe her late husband?

Believe it or not, when I was working for Stockwell Day and the Canadian Alliance was descending into its civil war, it was Warren Kinsella who gave me a minute of good advice while we rode an elevator together. It was a simple rule: get all the facts -- all of them -- in front of you before you start communicating in the middle of a crisis.

That clearly applies to the Tories here -- it sounds like no-one in the party has yet had a calm, friendly talk with Mrs. and Ms. Cadman, to really get the facts. What exactly did Chuck say? When did he say it? Did Mrs. Cadman really read the draft of the book carefully? Is the draft she received the same as what was actually published? What is the nature of her deal with Zytaruk? How does he get paid? How does she feel about running as a Tory candidate? Who suggested that Paul Martin write the introduction to the book? Why? What editorial input did he or other Liberals have? Who decided to leak that sexy tid-bit to the press? Who made the decision to do so the day after the budget, when the Liberals were in the soup? Do the Cadmans have any e-mails or other communications from Zytaruk? Do they have an recordings of the interviews themselves? Did they say anything to reporters in the heat of the moment, out of pressure -- that is, did Zytaruk write something that wasn't true, and did a reporter surprise them with it, and did they agree with it just not to embarrass Zytaruk and the book, and themselves, and Chuck's memory? Just the facts.

But I think the Liberals, and their chorus in the mainstream media, don't have all the facts in front of them either -- facts about the tape, and Zytaruk's motivations, and the nature of the book -- a vanity biography, apparently commissioned by the family, and blurbed by Paul Martin -- and other things that seem a little out of place.

Given the success of recent Hail Mary passes by the Liberal opposition, big, small and just plain pervy, it wouldn't shock me if this silver bullet ended up blowing up in their faces, too.


http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/standards-of-accuracy-at-liber.html
andards of accuracy at Liberal Caucus Research
By Ezra Levant on February 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Permalink | |

I can understand why the Liberals have embraced the Chuck Cadman allegations -- or, more accurately, third-hand allegations, three years after the fact, when the man in question is deceased. Anything to change the channel from their budget debacle. You've really got to listen to the fogginess of the allegations here to understand what we're dealing with. Add in the facts that:

    * the two people at that meeting who are still alive categorically deny the allegations;
    * the allegations were made public as the book's publisher was putting the book to market;
    * for some reason, former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin was given a draft copy of the book;
    * it's impossible to buy a million-dollar insurance policy for someone quickly dying of cancer;
    * such an expenditure by the Conservatives could not be secretly approved;
    * a cautious, calm hand like Tom Flanagan would not think a single vote was worth the near-million dollars such a policy would cost, given the imminence of the Liberals' defeat;
    * nor would Flanagan think it would be a sound political risk to put such a bribe to a principled man like Cadman (or anyone); and
    * to put it to him a few minutes before the vote they were trying to influence would be absurd and incredible.

Is there some way for us to measure the accuracy of the Liberal claims, other than by gut feel? Is there a way to see how carefully they measure facts, and how ethically they deploy them?

I think there is. Because, as part of their Question Period attack against the Tories yesterday, I came across this gem:
"Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval-Les Iles, Lib.):

    Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear such things, seeing as Mr. Cadman's legislative assistant confirmed that everything Mr. Cadman's widow said was true. What are they trying to accomplish by saying things like that?

    There are plenty more examples of suspicious activity. A former member of Parliament for the Prime Minister's riding, Ezra Levant, also received a lot of money to give up his seat to the Prime Minister himself. This government does not hesitate to flout election laws, and it could not care less about respect. Words fail me—"


My first reaction was delight, to learn that I had, in fact, been a "former member of Parliament". My second response was embarrassment, because I don't think I showed up even for a single vote.

My third reaction was anger that I was accused of "suspicious activity" and being part of a plan to "flout election laws". That's pretty clear: Raymonde Folco is accusing me of taking part in an illegal act.

Except that it's not true. Not only was I never an MP, but I never received -- nor was I even offered -- any compensation for stepping aside as the Canadian Alliance candidate for Stephen Harper. Of course, I would have liked to have been compensated for my election expenses to that point, though that would hardly have counted as "suspicious" and certainly wouldn't have "flouted election laws". But my wishes didn't happen.

Being called a law-breaker is about the worst defamation you could say about someone, especially a lawyer like me. It's a complete fabrication, factually inaccurate and completely unfair. But, because it was uttered in the House of Commons, it is protected by "absolute privilege". Ms. Folco is immune to a lawsuit.

Today my lawyers fired off this letter to her. And, until she repeats her accusations outside of Parliament, the letter is all that can be done, legally. I'm relying on Ms. Folco's title as an "honourable member" of the House of Commons to correct the record voluntarily -- and to do so with the same conspicuousness with which she first blighted the record.

But given the zeal of the Liberals to trump up the Cadman claims into something real, I'm not holding my breath that they're going to admit to any factual errors or unethical charges right now amongst their barrage of accusations.



 
Interesting Article from the Chronicle Herald

IN MAY 2005, the government of Paul Martin was careening toward its doom.

The worst revelations of the Gomery inquiry were still fresh and the Conservatives, newly unified and fired by righteous indignation, were desperate to bring Mr. Martin down before Canadians’ outrage faded.

The Liberals, desperate to avoid rough justice from the voters, played for time. They made a deal with the NDP to support their budget and lured Belinda Stronach to leave Peter MacKay and the Tories and cross the floor.

Bizarrely, the budget vote was so tight that it would be decided by one vote: the Independent MP for Surrey North, Chuck Cadman, a maverick with a ponytail who was dying of malignant melanoma.

Conservative heavyweights Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley went to see Mr. Cadman on May 19 to try to persuade him to vote to bring the Liberals down, even though the Conservatives weren’t really ready for a campaign.

In Mr. Flanagan’s book, Harper’s Team, he wrote that their effort was "an example of how the passion of politics lead to decisions that later make you scratch your head."

That night, on Mike Duffy Live, after Mr. Cadman voted with the government, he told Mike Duffy that Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Finlay had offered to readmit him to the Tory caucus and that he had received no other offers.

This week, though, we learned that he told his wife, daughter and son-in-law that two Tories, not necessarily the same fellows, had made another offer two days earlier.

On May 17, they offered him a $1-million life insurance policy, he told his family, at which point he asked the Tories to leave. His daughter said she burst into tears when he told her.

On the same day, elsewhere in Ottawa, the Liberals were doing their best to buy a little insurance from another MP from B.C.

British Columbia Liberal MP Ujal Dosanjh arranged a meeting between Tory MP Germant Grewal and Tim Murphy, Mr. Martin’s chief of staff.

We know that they were trying to lure Mr. Grewal to cross the floor to the Liberals, because Mr. Grewal was wearing a wire, apparently in a sting operation, with the knowledge of Mr. Harper.

Mr. Grewal asked to be made a cabinet minister and have his wife put in the Senate. Mr. Murphy said Mr. Martin had forbidden him from offering a reward outside of politics but let on that the party would lay out "a welcome mat that has a lot of nice comfy fur on it." (Wink-wink. Nudge-nudge.)

Mr. Dosanjh went further, telling Mr. Grewal: "In fact, cabinet can be arranged right away."

On Thursday, Mr. Dosanjh told reporters in Ottawa that Mr. Harper might have been involved "in a criminal offence" if Mr. Cadman had been offered a bribe.

When I reminded him that he himself had tried to lure Mr. Grewal across the floor, he grew visibly angry.

"I did not," he said. "I am sorry, you should go check your record."

So here we have a politician trying to deny something for which there is clear evidence on tape.

The Tories are equally vociferous in their denials now, but we can take their denials as seriously as we take Mr. Dosanjh’s.

Mr. Harper previously denied offering $50,000 to nominated Tory candidate Alan Riddell to step aside to make way for Gomery whistle-blower Allan Cutler. When the party decided not to pay up, Mr. Riddell took them to court and a judge ruled that such an offer had been made.

And there is a tape of Mr. Harper discussing this insurance offer with journalist Tom Zytaruk, whose upcoming book about Mr. Cadman reveals the bribe story.

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

Mr. Harper: "I don’t know the details. I know that there were discussions."

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

This is significant, because Mr. Cadman privately told Mike Duffy before the budget vote that he was inclined to vote with the Liberals because if there was an election, then he might not be an MP upon his death. That would mean the life insurance benefits his family received would be cut in half.

Did the Tories, knowing that he wanted to look after his wife and daughter, offer to help?

Nobody can doubt that Mr. Cadman privately told his family that the Tories did that. The Cadmans have no reason to lie. And why would Mr. Cadman make up a story like that, a story that was very painful to the people he loved the most?

There’s a lot about this story that doesn’t make sense. What insurance company would write a million-dollar policy for a dying man? Even if some wealthy Tory could find a way to do it, would it really be worth a million dollars to bring the government down? Why did Mr. Cadman deny receiving any offers publicly and tell his family another story?

There is little hope that we will get to the bottom of this, but the consequences are potentially grave. The ethics committee has decided to investigate, and the Liberals have called in the Mounties.

Offering an MP an inducement to change his vote is a serious crime, punishable by a year in prison. Offering a life insurance policy to a dying man in exchange for his vote is monstrous.

When Ms. Stronach crossed the floor, Mr. Harper made a comment that showed he was aware of the danger of going too far in his efforts to bring down the Liberals. The source is philosopher Frederick Nietzsche, but Mr. Harper attributed it to his father: "Be careful when you fight a monster lest you yourself become a monster."

( smaher@herald.ca)

Nobody can doubt that Mr. Cadman privately told his family that the Tories did that. The Cadmans have no reason to lie. And why would Mr. Cadman make up a story like that, a story that was very painful to the people he loved the most?
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1041148.html
 
Firstly, who would sell a dying man a $1,000,000 insurance policy?

Secondly, would an experienced insider like Tom Flanagan - a political science professor, be crazy enough to risk five years in jail under Section 121 of the Criminal Code?
 
Nobody can doubt that Mr. Cadman privately told his family that the Tories did that. The Cadmans have no reason to lie. And why would Mr. Cadman make up a story like that, a story that was very painful to the people he loved the most?

People lie all the time without a real reason to even when it's to their own and others detriment. Even the innocent often lie to save face, cover-up embarrassing facts or out of fear they will be accused of wrongdoing. I find the "no reason to lie" arguement a very thin and inadequate attempt to try and puff up heresay.
 
I agree people lie all the time for many reasons. In this case, its all pure speculation as to who is lying and why. People need to form their own opinions on the reasons for this lie, what makes the most sense.
 
Several foolish posts bickering over the title of the Chronical Post article have been clean out of the thread.  For those who need it to sleep at night, the article posted in reply # 108 by sgf is:

LETTER FROM OTTAWA
by STEPHEN MAHER
Sat. Mar 1 - 4:47 AM

Now lets grow up & stop being silly.
 
I'm strating to wonder why the Liberals dredged up this whole affair, without realizing the blow-back that would certainly occur over Stronach crossing the floor at the same time and Dosanj clearly trying to buy Grewal's vote with a cabinet seat.

This whole episode is a sorry commentary on our political system...
 
Loyalty, ignorance and fabrication can be be bought from anyone. As with anything in life, it's all for sale. You only have to meet the seller's price. Who knows what provoked Mrs Cadman her daughter and son in law to state what they did. Lies, misunderstanding, miscommunication, exaggeration..... the truth? There's only one person that can answer that question, and he can't. I'm sure if physical evidence existed, it would have been hauled out by now.

As to the author of the, already dead in the water bio, all the controversy is only good, unpaid for, publicity. It adds to the profits garnered from the $500.00 a copy, edited tape of an interview. Probably not much more than he will receive in royalties from his litterbox liner.

Non of the sitting parties in government have a lock on ethics, but quite the opposite. Personally, given how our elected officials from all stripes conduct themselves, I'm surprised anyone is even worrying about this.

Unless absolute proof surfaces, I give this story one more week. Longer if the grits can convince the RCMP to get involved, but only until they realise they don't have RPG (reasonable probable grounds).

Wait for it.
 
recceguy said:
It adds to the profits garnered from the $500.00 a copy, edited tape of an interview.

What I read from recceguy  post is that the tape is $500, not the book ...
 
sgf said:
This book is being sold for $500 a copy? Where did that information come from?  As a matter of fact, you can download it online for free
You're so hell bent on defending your unsubstantiated stance you can't even read straight. Try again:

It adds to the profits garnered from the $500.00 a copy, edited tape of an interview.

BTW, I'm not debating you in this thread, just giving my opinion on the subject. I will not give you an excuse, or platform, to regurgitate what you've been trying to imply without proof. Please don't engage me again unless you understand what I've said and have substantiation (does not include the MSM and other hack journalists) for what you state as fact.
 
Yrys said:
What I read from recceguy  post is that the tape is $500, not the book ...

Thank you, I obviously misunderstood his post.
 
Nonetheless, this must be duly investigated just as the Grewal and Goodale incidents were.  The result will most likely be the same as those investigations which found no wrong doing.  There are many similarities to the Grewal case including allegations that the tape had been edited or altered.  Nice to know that are political system is so accountable and honest that there is a play-book for such occasions.     
 
Harper files notice of libel over Cadman allegations
CTV.ca News Staff Updated: Mon. Mar. 3 2008 10:14 AM ET
Article Link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed a notice of libel against Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and other top Liberals over allegations they've made about him in the Chuck Cadman affair.

Robert Fife, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief, told Newsnet that Dion was served this morning at his Stornoway residence in Ottawa.

"The prime minister is not only suing the Liberal leader, he's suing the deputy leader, Michael Ignatieff; Ralph Goodale, who is the House leader; and the Liberal Party of Canada," he said.

"Mr. Harper's notice of libel says they've accused him of knowing about Conservative bribery in the Cadman affair," he said.

Harper said the allegations, made outside the House of Commons and on the Liberal party's website, are false and misleading. He is asking for an immediate retraction, Fife said.

The notice asks for two allegedly defamatory articles to be removed from the liberal.ca website and provides wording for an apology to be read out by Dion in the House of Commons. The notice requests the apology be given in English and French.

If the Liberals don't provide an apology, the Conservatives want the Liberals to preserve all records and email traffic, Fife said.

Last week, a new book made the claim that former Conservative MP Chuck Cadman was essentially offered financial inducements by Conservative party officials to vote down the Liberal government's 2005 budget.
More on link
 
Go to:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=TopStories&video_link_high=http://esi.ctv.ca/datafeed/urlgen2.aspx?vid=34904&video_link_low=raw_harper&clip_start=00:00:00.00&clip_end=00:02:33.00&clip_caption=Raw%20interview%20between%20Stephen%20Harper%20and%20Tom%20Zytaruk&clip_id=34904&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20080228&slug=cadman_bribe_AM_080228&archive=CTVNews

To here the actual interview. The liberals are accusing him of knowing about the Cadman 'bribery'.
 
Back
Top