During the G20 in Toronto, when Canadian citizens were being arrested, beaten and shot with rubber bulletts, simply for engaging in their democratic right to protest, at Charles McVety's Christian College, another event was taking place.
With an election on the horizon, Harper's point man to the Religious Right, was hosting a seminar with none other than Karl Rove, the man who helped to steal two elections for George Bush.
McVety also runs the Canadian chapter of Christians United For Israel, a frightening and Apocalyptic Christian fundamentalist group, that promotes the nuclear annihilation of the Middle East. Apparently that's what God wants them to do.
The Christian College had previously hosted an election stealing seminar with Ralph Reed, attended by Jim Flaherty and several Conservative operatives.
The fruits of their labour were finally realized in May of 2011, when Stephen Harper got his majority.
However, it was the manner in which he obtained this goal that is now in question. Not questionable at all though, given the fact that they learned from the best American democracy thieves: Rove and Reed. (and for Harper the late Paul Weyrich)
Of course, Harper is again claiming not to know about the bogus phone calls, that have led right back to the Conservative Party. He is "promising" to get to the bottom of it.
Just like he promised to investigate the election financing scheme that brought him to power in 2006. Instead, he sued us, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And let's not forget the Cadman affair, when a dying man was bribed for his vote. Stephen Harper didn't know about that either, and when a tape was produced suggesting otherwise, he claimed that it was doctored. An FBI forensic lab proved that he was lying.
Again, he sued instead of explaining himself.
For a man with such unprecedented control, it's hard to believe that he wasn't aware of what was happening right under his nose.
This makes him either a first class liar or the stupidest man in the country, neither good attributes for a leader.
I think Elections Canada must determine that the last election was a fraud. I doubt the NDP would want that, however, so what they should do is simply hold bi-elections in all of the ridings that Conservatives won through voter suppression and bogus telemarketing smear campaigns.
If they get away with this, it means that we will allow them to get away with anything.
The body of evidence, "objective proof that a crime has been committed", couldn't be more apparent than in the case of Chuck Cadman.
He was the Reform-Alliance MP, who was approached by Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley with the bribe of a one million dollar life insurance policy, in exchange for his vote on the budget in 2005.
Attempting to bribe an elected official in a democratic country is a very serious offense, and in this case absolutely despicable, considering that the man was then dying of cancer.
When the news first broke, Stephen Harper was emphatic: In question period in the House of Commons on Thursday, Harper denied the claims of a possible bribe, saying "There is absolutely no truth to it."
Sounds a lot like "I did not have sex with that woman!"
Cadman biographer Tom Zytaruk has written about the matter in his forthcoming book, "Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story." Cadman's widow, Dona, told Zytaruk the late MP told her he was angered by an offer from Tory officials, which she claimed included a reference to an insurance policy. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, then opposition leader, was asked by Zytaruk in 2005 whether he knew anything about the allegations that an offer had been made.
"I don't know the details. I know there were discussions," Harper replied in the taped conversation, two months after Cadman's death. Harper also said the discussions included talk of money.
Harper claimed that the tape that was being aired of him admitting to knowing of the bribe was doctored, but the FBI crime lab analyzed the tape and found it to be accurate and not tampered with.
In typical fashion he attacked the author of the book on Cadman, Tom Zytaruk, and sued the Liberals for demanding an RCMP investigation.
Under Parliamentary rules, MPs found guilty of this kind of "influence pedaling" can lose their seat and be banned from running for five years. So what happened?
One more illegal act that got swept under the rug. This man really has no legitimacy and yet he's still here. What will it take?
The Cadman affairs speaks to Harper's contempt for Parliament, contempt for democracy and contempt for the Canadian people.
He just does what he wants and keeps getting away with it.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
"For the first time in Canadian political life, attack ads have been launched outside an election cycle. The Conservative "Not a Leader" tag line for Stephane Dion was drummed into voters' heads in January 2007 — mere weeks after Stephane Dion won the Liberal leadership. The increasing prominence of a presidential-style prime minister is steadily denigrating the traditions and institutions of Canadian democracy." - Elizabeth May (1)
From television ads to tax payer funded ten percenters, the Reform-Conservatives hammered the message that Stephane Dion was not a leader, based on nothing more than a fabricated perception of weakness.
And when that wasn't enough, they resorted to lies. The MP from Blackstrap Saskatchewan, Lynne Yelich, used her taxpayer funded handouts to suggest that Mr. Dion was going to end the Universal childcare benefit, when he had never said such a thing. He was only promoting a national child care plan, instead of throwing crumbs at a problem. But that never factored into Yelich's attack. Fear mongering was her only goal.
They also used a soundbite from the leadership convention, when Dion asked Michael Ignatieff "Do you think it's easy to make priorities?", when in fact the translation would have been to "keep". And besides, if we were going to use comments made at leadership conventions or during leadership races, the Conservatives, when they were Reform and then Alliance, were ruthless. You could write a book.
And if the push-poll handouts, TV ads and fabrications weren't enough, they even resorted to spying, using our employee James Murray to run covert operations.
But the worst was yet to come.
The 2008 Undemocratic Election
In their book: The provincial state in Canada, Keith Brownsey and Michael Howlett, referred to the 1999 election campaign of Mike Harris in Ontario as "probably the most undemocratic Electoral campaign that post-war Ontario had witnessed." (2) If that was the most undemocratic in modern Ontario history, the 2008 Conservative federal election campaign, was hands down the most undemocratic in Canadian history.
First off, there should not have been an election at all. Not only did Stephen Harper break his own law to call a snap election, but there was a criminal investigation underway against his party for the "In and Out" election scheme. An investigation in which he was doing everything in his power to squash.
According to Dr. Joan Russow of the Global Compliance Research Project:
There should never have been an election in Canada. The Governor General should have refused to accept the Right Honourable Steven Harper’s request for an election when there was an outstanding investigation into the fraudulent practices of the Conservative Party during the 2006 election. The investigation was underway by the Parliamentary Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. With the calling of the election, the Committee was disbanded. In addition, there was a similar investigation by Elections Canada. (3)
I think that was probably one of the main reasons the election was called. It halted the investigation and gave Harper a chance to get a legal team in place.
And they had not even dealt with the Chuck Cadman affair, when Stephen Harper was caught on tape admitting that he knew of the one million dollar bribe presented to the dying MP for his vote. (4)
But the Conservatives were confident that they had irrevocably damaged the reputation of the Liberal leader, and were going to ride that to a majority.
The Campaign Hits a Snag
One thing that the 1999 re-election campaign of Mike Harris, and the 2008 re-election campaign of Stephen Harper had in common, was Guy Giorno. He handled them both, but despite leaving nothing to chance and keeping Stephen Harper in a bubble throughout, they still found themselves in trouble.
The environment was becoming an election issue, and Harper's climate change denial was already well known. Then a group of Nobel prize winning environmentalists came out in favour of the carbon tax, which was considered by many to be the best in place to fight global warming.
The Liberals then started to rise in the polls and Stephen Harper was in trouble.
The fallout from the French and English debates shows the previous pre-debate 10 point Conservative margin is now four percentage points. Tracking shows incremental movement in favour of the Liberals and Stephane Dion. Dion registered his highest score as the person Canadians think would make the best Prime Minister. (5)
Enter CTV*, Steve Murphy and Mike Duffy
We probably all remember the airing of the false starts, when Stephane Dion appeared on Steve Murphy's program. False starts that were later made into a Mike Duffy episode, and a rare press conference by Stephen Harper. But what most people may not know, considering that the media buried the story, is that both Steve Murphy and Mike Duffy were charged with ethics violations, as a result of their complicity in influencing the results of an election.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) today released two decisions concerning the broadcast of three false starts of an interview by CTV anchor Steve Murphy with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion during the October 2008 federal election campaign. Each restart had been requested by Mr. Dion and granted by Mr. Murphy, CJCH-TV (CTV Atlantic)’s news anchor.
One decision related to the first broadcast of the false starts (which were followed by the broadcast of the full 12-minute interview) on CTV Atlantic’s newscast CTV News at 6 on October 9. The other related to the rebroadcast by CTV Newsnet of the restarts on the public affairs discussion program Mike Duffy Live Prime Time later that same evening. The CBSC concluded that both broadcasts violated certain provisions of the Radio Television News Directors of Canada (RTNDA) Code of (Journalistic) Ethics and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics. (6)
The CRTC also found that the question asked (I wonder who wrote it?) was convoluted and in violation of media fairness:
The CBSC’s Atlantic Regional Panel examined the CTV Atlantic broadcast, while the National Specialty Services Panel adjudicated the Mike Duffy Live broadcast. The Atlantic Panel reviewed the complaints under the provisions of the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics and CAB Code of Ethics relating to accuracy and fairness, as well as an article of the RTNDA Code that requires journalists to treat people with decency and courtesy. The Panel observed that the phrasing of Murphy’s question was “confusing, and not only to a person whose first language is other than English. In the strictest grammatical sense, Steve Murphy’s question mixes not only tenses (present and past), but also moods (subjunctive and indicative),” so “blame for misapprehension cannot simply be laid at the feet of the interviewee.” (6)
They also found that:
In the rest of the full interview, which continued from that point but was not broadcast on the Duffy show, the Liberal leader, in response to Murphy’s several questions, dealt with what he would say “to ease the minds of Canadians”, the Liberal economic plan, the proposed carbon tax, deficits, the green shift, taxes, comparable European national policies, and Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan. The transcript of that interview can be found as Appendix A to the Atlantic Regional Panel’s decision in CJCH-TV (CTV Atlantic) re CTV News at 6 (Stéphane Dion interview) (CBSC Decision 08/09-0196+, January 12, 2009). (7)
And even the airing of the false starts by Murphy raised questions:
As anchor for that newscast, Murphy introduced his full interview session, including all restarts, with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion as follows: "Someone once said that in politics a week is a lifetime. Well, it’s now several weeks since we last spoke with Stéphane Dion and a great many things have changed. The world markets are now in turmoil, interest rates and the dollar are falling and the Liberal Party has seen its popularity rise in the polls after the two leaders debates. Against that backdrop, we sat down this afternoon with Stéphane Dion. I began by asking Mr. Dion about his comments that the prime minister has done nothing to put Canadians’ minds at ease about the current economic problems. I asked him, quote, “If you were prime minister now, what would you have done that Mr. Harper has not done?” After beginning to answer that question, Monsieur Dion asked to start the interview again because he did not understand the question.
After a second false start, a member of Monsieur Dion’s staff explained the question to Monsieur Dion and there was also a third false start. Perhaps we shouldn’t have agreed to restart with the questioning and the Liberal campaign was anxious that this exchange not be broadcast and initially we indicated that it would not be. However, on reflection, CTV News believes we owe it to you to show you everything that happened." CTV Atlantic then proceeded to broadcast the full interview, preceded by the false starts and retakes. The false starts consisted solely of a head shot of Stéphane Dion, Murphy’s voice being heard off-camera. The complete interview reflected the more traditional cutaways to the interviewer. (8)
Two months after the election, on December 22, 2008; Mike Duffy was given a plum senate appointment for his efforts. But considering the fact that he had not only violated ethics, but had grossly interfered in the democratic process, should there not be a parliamentary ethics investigation? Should he not be removed from senate?
I don't think he can simply walk away from this, especially when he's still on our dole. What do you think?
Footnotes:
*Peter MacKay's fiancee is an executive at CTV. (they have since split but were together then) Sources:
1. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 8
2. The Provincial State: Politics in Canada's Provinces and Territories, by Keith Brownsey and Michael Howlett, UTP Higher Education, 2001, ISBN-13: 978-155111368, Pg. 193
The Reform-Conservatives are clearly out of control. Does their corruption know no bounds?
As the video montage of just a few of their scandals suggests, we just have to lower our expectations. But how much lower? Should we just say do what you want with our money because we no longer give a damn? Unbelievable.
OTTAWA - The Harper government spent well over $100,000 staging a one-hour event in June to deliver an update on its efforts to help the recession-ravaged economy. Invoices obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act show a nominal bill to taxpayers of $108,000 for the carefully scripted "town hall" meeting in Cambridge, Ont.
... Critics say it's just the latest example of what they're calling a Tory penchant for leveraging public money for partisan gain. "It fits in with a whole pattern with this government where they are basically using tax dollars to promote themselves to voters," said Gerry Nicholls of the right-wing web portal Libertaspost.com. That's clearly wrong. It's clearly a waste of tax dollars."
... "If you go back to Judge Gomery's report (on sponsorship), the No. 1 thing that he says is these guys get to a point where they simply don't see the difference anymore between government money and party money ...
IS THIS REALLY CONSERVATIVE? IS STEPHEN HARPER REALLY THE BEST CHOICE FOR CANADA?
Canadian Alliance MP Rahim Jaffer has been demoted by the party after his executive assistant impersonated him on a national radio show.
Matthew Johnston appeared on a nationally-syndicated phone-in show on Saturday and impersonated the Edmonton-Strathcona MP.
Peter Warren, the show's host, says the hoax was eventually revealed, but not before both Johnston and Jaffer tried to cover it up. Warren says his producer asked Jaffer directly if they had talked to him on the air."She reached him at his cafe in Edmonton and said to him, 'Was that you on the interview with Peter Warren on the Corus Radio Network an hour ago?' and his answer was, 'Yes it was. I was happy to do the interview'.
"Warren says they finally got an admission from Johnston and Jaffer when they asked them to put their version in writing.
John Reynolds, the Alliance whip, says Jaffer has been suspended from his duties as chair of the party's small-business advisory committee."I talked to my leaders and house leaders, and I'm the one that's responsible for discipline as the whip, and I suggested we suspend Mr. Jaffer and we have done that," he says.
Reynolds says the disciplinary measure means Jaffer has been relegated to the back benches. He says Johnston apologized and has since resigned from his position.
All wrapped up in a tidy little bow, but Preston Manning discusses the incident in his book "Think Big. My Adventures in Life and Politics" (Chapter 14, The Downward Spiral, pg 379-80), and presents a slightly different version.
Apparently after realizing that he had set up the radio interview on the day that he would be opening a new coffee shop, Jaffer made arrangements with his aid, Matthew Johnston, to appear in his place. Since it was radio no one would see him, and the Edmonton-Strathcona MP drilled his replacement on potential answers to specific questions.
But while the interview was being aired, a listener recognized Johnston's voice and complained to the station that this was some kind of hoax. "The story as told by Rahim in Ottawa, with the help of his friend Ezra (Levant), was that Matthew had acted entirely on his own."
Preston Manning continues: Chuck Strahl, the House leader, first learned of all this from Jason Kenney at a strategy meeting at Stornoway. Chuck told Jason that Rahim's account had better be the whole truth, because the media would be looking for contradictions, and if they found any Rahim would be in even greater trouble. Jason (Kenney) then said "I wouldn't worry about that. $40,000.00 buys a lot of silence." (Apparently that was the amount of 'severance' given to Matthew Johnston for keeping quiet.)
The reference to $ 40,000.00 was made without elaboration. The next day the same statement about $40,000.00 was repeated by Ezra Levant to both Chuck Cadman and Deborah Grey (who also makes note of it in her book), who at this time demanded an explanation. Ezra then said that it meant nothing, that he was just shooting off his mouth and it was no big deal.
When the story broke about the Tories trying to buy independent MP Chuck Cadman's vote with a million dollar insurance policy, the PMO's office was working overtime trying to find a way to spin the story, and if possible, blame it on the opposition.
As the the government's point man on the Cadman file, Jay Moore was everywhere, telling anyone who'd listen that the tape had been doctored. As stories like this go, it took on a life of it's own, until it eventually became an outright accusation, that it was the Liberal Party that had tampered with evidence.
Of course this was sheer nonsense, but it didn't stop them from launching a libel suit against the Liberal Party of Canada, and in fact defame them in the public arena.
You'll notice in the Toronto Star photo the image of James Moore against a backdrop reading 'Incomplete ... Fabricated Soundbite ... Doctored a number of times'. Don't know what backdrop he used when the forensics lab found that it wasn't doctored, though this reminds me of the way the Tories are now 'doctoring' old tapes of Michael Ignatieff in their attack ads.
Cadman tape 'doctored,' Tories say Harper seeking court order to block further use by Liberals Jun 05, 2008 04:30 AM Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA–The Conservative party says a tape of Stephen Harper's conversation with a B.C. author about "financial considerations" offered a dying MP was "doctored" and it is seeking a court order to block the Liberals from further use or reference to it. MP James Moore told reporters yesterday that the party hired two audio specialists to analyze the September 2005 tape and they found it had been altered. (later forensics lab found that none of the conversation had been altered. Stephen Harper would have known that))
"The (Tom) Zytaruk tape is completely discredited," Moore said. The tape has been at the centre of politically explosive allegations, made by Cadman's widow, Dona, and other family members, that the Tories offered B.C. independent MP Chuck Cadman a $1 million life insurance policy in exchange for his support on a key vote in Parliament in May 2005 that could have brought down the minority government of Paul Martin.
Tory officials have denied the $1 million offer and Harper has sued the Liberals for libel for suggesting he and his party attempted to bribe Cadman for his vote.
He is now seeking a court order to prevent further use of it by the Liberals. In the widely circulated recording, Harper tells Zytaruk, the author of a book on Cadman, that an offer was made to the dying independent MP "to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."
The Prime Minister has said repeatedly since then that Cadman, a former Reform and Tory MP, was only offered the chance to return to the Conservative party, and financial help in his re-election bid.
In a sworn affidavit made public yesterday, Harper, who was Opposition leader at the time of the interview, says: "The financial matters that I spoke about during my interview with Mr. Zytaruk only related to normal nomination and election campaign expenses that would be incurred by any candidate."
Harper said the party "was prepared to assist Chuck Cadman in securing his nomination and to ensure, financially and otherwise, that he was able to conduct a successful election campaign as a Conservative party candidate."
"When I was interviewed by Mr. Zytaruk, this was my understanding of the purpose of the meeting that (campaign director) Tom Flanagan and (political operations director) Doug Finley had with Chuck Cadman that took place on May 19, 2005.
"Somebody has doctored this audiotape by deleting parts of that interview," Harper states in the affidavit. (Found not to be true. Nothing doctored)
Conservatives have not said who they think might have doctored the tape. They have not sued the author, Zytaruk, or his publisher.
Zytaruk, whose Cadman biography, Like a Rock, quotes Harper, denies editing the tape he provided to the Conservatives or to media. Harper and his legal team say the truth of the entire conversation lies in the clicks and gaps on a copy of the original tape. The Conservatives ratcheted up the rhetoric yesterday by calling a news conference to highlight expert audio analyses they commissioned for the libel suit.
The Liberals said they will not cease using the Prime Minister's own words, but leader Stéphane Dion said that if an injunction were issued after the scheduled Sept. 16 hearing, they "will respect the law."
Zytaruk provided Harper's lawyer with what he says was a complete and unedited copy of the entire conversation that he recorded, and yesterday he stuck to that claim.
In Surrey, B.C., yesterday, Zytaruk said the entire tape was given to the Conservatives and he said he has no reason to have doctored the recording.
"I would have to have rocks in my head to do that," said Zytaruk. "Why would I do that? I'm not the politician here."
But Harper says their entire conversation was five to 10 minutes long. The tape runs only two minutes, 47 seconds.
At the news conference, Moore (Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam) cited American sound engineer Tom Owen, of Owl Investigations. Owen has been used by authorities to analyze the authenticity of Osama bin Laden tapes. "I have concluded with scientific certainty that this (Zytaruk) tape has been edited and doctored to misrepresent the event as it actually occurred," Owen states.
Owen notes an edit after a Zytaruk question: "I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars for Dona" [CLICK/edit] and "Do you know anything about that?" Harper answers: "I don't know the details. I know there were discussions."
The result is it appears Harper was admitting there was such an offer to begin with, which Harper flatly denies in his affidavit.
Harper's spokesperson, Dimitri Soudas, said in an email "the edits change what the PM told Zytaruk during that interview."
"When the PM says he does not know the details, he is not answering a question about the insurance policy for Dona."
OTTAWA - The Liberals say any suggestions in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's lawsuit that they are involved in doctoring a tape recording in the Chuck Cadman affair are "outrageous, scandalous, politically motivated" and completely without foundation.
The federal Liberal party's statement of defence, submitted to court Friday, responds to Harper's latest legal claim for $1 million in damages for "misappropriation of personality" and for an injunction to stop the Liberals from using an "incomplete and doctored" tape of Harper talking to Cadman biographer Tom Zytaruk. (ha, ha, ha ... 'misappropriation of personality'??? Harper has a personality????)
Emphasizing that Zytaruk stands by the tape as unaltered and unedited, the Liberals assert that Harper's latest claim is "fundamentally incompatible with the right to freedom of political expression" and is an attempt by the governing Conservative party to silence the official opposition on a matter of significant public interest.
If the tape recording has caused any damage to the prime minister, the Liberals argue, Harper contributed to it himself by refusing to explain his own words on the tape and by refusing to explain what he alleges is missing from the tape of a conversation he had with Zytaruk on Sept. 9, 2005.
In the tape, widely broadcast by the media and cited by Liberals as evidence that the prime minister knew of an alleged attempt to bribe Cadman, Harper is heard saying that an offer to Cadman "was only to replace financial considerations he might lose during an election.
"The Liberals questioned the government for months about allegations by Cadman's widow, daughter and son-in-law that the MP told them before he died of cancer that two unidentified (now identified as Doug Finlay and Tom Flanagan) Conservative officials offered him a $1-million insurance policy in exchange for his vote in the House of Commons in May, 2005, a vote that could have brought down the Liberal government of Paul Martin.
Cadman, an Independent MP, allegedly refused the offer, which came to light in Zytaruk's biography earlier this year.
Cadman's wife, Dona, has since said she believed Harper when he looked her in the eyes and said he knew nothing of an insurance policy offer. And Harper and his spokesmen have repeatedly said the only offer to Cadman was for financial and other assistance to run for the Conservatives in an election if the government was defeated.
Although they have cited the tape in a fundraising appeal to supporters, the Liberals deny they have any proprietary interest in the tape, a factor considered in some "misappropriation of personality" cases.
Harper's claim is on top of a $2.5-million libel suit he launched in May, accusing the Liberals of "reckless indifference to the truth...maliciously repeating false, heinous, excessive, extreme and totally unreasonable allegations," based on a partial tape recording and an unproofed excerpt from an unpublished version of Zytaruk's book.
Harper's new claim does not directly accuse the Liberals of editing or doctoring the tape, but repeatedly says "someone" did so and accuses the Liberals of exploiting the tape to portray the prime minister "in a false light for political gain and partisan purposes."
The extra $1-million claim was filed as an amendment to the libel suit June 5, a day after B.C. Conservative MP James Moore, the government's point man on the Cadman file, held a news conference to explain expert analysis that Zytaruk's tape is incomplete and doctored.
Harper's claim said the Liberal party was "informed that the edited and doctored audiotape was incomplete, edited and not credible but consistently ignore this fact."The defendants have used the edited and doctored audiotape to wrongly usurp the plaintiff of his right to control his own image and to portray the plaintiff in a false light," it said. The Liberal defence asks the court to dismiss Harper's claims with costs.
Harper dropped the lawsuit after it was proven that the tape had not been doctored, but still refuses to address the issue.
A story beginning with 'Tories break law' should follow with a shocking revelation, but with the Conservative Party of Canada it has become so common that we now simply accept it as part of their Party platform.
From the "in and out" to "airbus", they are nothing if not consistent.
This brings us to the Chuck Cadman affair, and Harper's role in the illegal attempt to buy an MP's vote. This one is particularly sleazy because the vote in question was that of a dying man, and the bribe was a million dollar life insurance policy.
So if you're wondering just how low the Tories can go, wonder no more. And an audio tape suggests then-opposition leader Stephen Harper was not only aware of a financial offer to Chuck Cadman but gave it his personal approval.
When Jaffer pulled a hoax on a national radio program by having his assistant fill in, Kenney and Levan paid off the aid with a $ 40,000.00 'severance', though the truth came out eventually.
The ease with which they not only bribed Matthew Johnston to lie, but actually bragged about it, makes the Cadman affair even more credible.
Cadman affair sparks election threat Liberals may rethink plan to prop up Tories Mar 01, 2008 Toronto Star Richard Brennan Bruce Campion-Smith OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA–Liberal MPs are openly musing about toppling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government over allegations the Conservatives tried to buy the vote of an independent MP. Just days after ruling out an election over Tuesday's federal budget, opposition Liberals say a change of strategy is in the air and a spring election is a possibility as the Tories struggle with charges that they used financial incentives to win the support of British Columbia MP Chuck Cadman in May 2005.
Liberal MP Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East) said it is now very difficult for the Liberals to continue to support the Tory government.
"The (Liberal) party may have to reconsider, in light of the allegations, whether it ought to prop up the government now facing ethical allegations that go right to the top," McTeague said.
"If this story is not discredited substantially in the next 48 hours, I am sure that a number of our colleagues will be very keen come Monday to pull the plug on this (minority) government," said Liberal MP Garth Turner (Halton).
"I don't know how (Harper) can stay the prime minister and I don't know how the government can remain the government," he said, adding that Harper should step aside if the RCMP launches a probe of the allegations.
A biography of Cadman, to be published this month, charges that two Conservative party officials offered Cadman, who was critically ill with cancer, a $1 million life insurance policy if he voted against the then-Liberal minority government in a confidence vote on May 19, 2005. If he had voted with the Conservatives, the government would have fallen, forcing an election. Jodi Cadman told the Star yesterday that her father confided shortly before he died that he had been offered the insurance policy. She echoed statements made by her mother Dona that are in the biography.
She said her father asked her to keep the information confidential.
Cadman sided with the Liberals, keeping the government alive for a few more months. Harper then won a minority government on Jan. 23, 2006.
"I was incredibly proud that he didn't take it," she said. "People didn't know he was so close to the end." Cadman died on July 9, 2005.
Harper has denied the allegations and said party officials made no offer to Cadman, a defence Conservatives continued in the House of Commons yesterday. (The tape shows that Harper lied)
"There were three people at the meeting that we are talking about here and all three of them said that no offer was made. That is the simple fact. I am sorry if it does not jive with the Liberal political tactic here, but it is the truth," said Conservative MP James Moore (Port Moody-Westwood-Coquitlam).
Conservative officials Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley (MP Diane Finley's husband) issued a statement Thursday saying they met with Cadman on May 19, just hours before the vote. They could not be reached for comment yesterday.
However, Dona Cadman insists that two Conservative officials visited her husband's office on May 17, 2005 – two days before the vote – and tried to lure him back into the Tory caucus with the promise of a $1 million life insurance policy.
"They want him to vote against the government," she is quoted in the biography, Like A Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story.
And an interview with the book's author, Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk, Harper, who was opposition leader at the time, even suggests he knew of the offer.
Asked about the insurance policy, Harper said, "it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election, okay? That's my understanding of what they were talking about."
It is considered an offence under the Criminal Code to offer a politician an inducement, financial or otherwise, to influence him or her.
The RCMP is considering the Liberals' written demand for a police probe of the allegations, police spokesperson Sylvie Tremblay said in an interview yesterday.
"The RCMP is currently reviewing the content of the letter to determine what action, if any, the RCMP will take," she said.
Outside the Commons, Moore suggested the "bootlegged" tape of Zytaruk's interview with Harper had been edited, and called on the author to release the "full version." (is this anything like the 'bootlegged' tapes of Michael Ignatieff they're using in attack ads ... leaving out the context?)
"We've only, of course, seen a segment of the conversation and we want to see a full unedited version of this conversation," Moore said.
But Zytaruk said the tape released by his publisher to media outlets, including the Star, is the "full and unedited" tape of his conversation. "You've got it there from the beginning to the end, the entirety," Zytaruk said in an interview. "If they're making noises that this tape has been doctored ... that's preposterous."
Conservative party spokesperson Ryan Sparrow said there was no meeting on May 17. On May 19, the Tories say, Finley and Flanagan met with Cadman and offered the independent MP the Conservative nomination for his riding, if he agreed to return to the party.
As well, they also offered him a loan to help offset the costs of running an election, Sparrow said. " It was supposed to be repaid back to the party," he said.
