Walk with me for a second. Follow my reaction to this developing story as told by the CBC:
The late Independent MP from British Columbia who kept the Liberals in power in the spring of 2005 was offered a $1 million life insurance policy by the Conservatives in an attempt to win his vote, according to an upcoming book.
Chuck Cadman, who was battling cancer and died in July 2005, sided with the minority Liberals in the crucial vote on May 19, 2005, ensuring Canadians would not have to head to the polls for a summer election.
...
Two days before the vote, Zytaruk writes, Cadman was visited by two Conservative party representatives — who are not identified — and presented with a list of enticements to rejoin the party before the vote.
A million-dollar life insurance policy was on the list, Zytaruk writes.
"That was on him, so that if he died I'd get the million dollars," Cadman's wife, Dona, is quoted as saying. "There was a few other things thrown in there too."
Dona Cadman said her husband was offended by the offers, the book says.
I remember the time well. The minority Liberal government of Paul Martin had gotten itself into a pickle. The poll numbers were iffy and it was a finely balanced house. The Bloc Quebecois and the Conservatives were ready to bring everything down. The NDP had lent their support to the Liberals in exchange for increases in health and infrastructure funding. The balance of power was shared by three independent MPs: mouth-footed former Liberal Carolyn Parish who would vote with the government, embittered former Liberal David Kilgour, who would vote against the government, and Chuck Cadman.
Chuck was a former Conservative and Reform Party member, but he had won his seat in 2004 as an independent after he was pushed out of his party by Stephen Harper. He was a firm believer in serving his constituents, and had polled them to ask them what to do in this critical vote. He was also suffering from terminal cancer and undergoing chemotherapy, but he made sure he was in Ottawa for the vote. He stayed mum as to his intentions, making him possibly the most heavily covered independent MP in the history of Canada.
When the critical budget vote took place, the roll call of Yeas swept through the Liberal and NDP benches, swept Carolyn Parish to her feet, and then the camera was there to catch her delighted gasp. The entire parliament gasped. Chuck Cadman, looking a little bit smug and a little bit shy, had voted with the government.
It was quite a powerful image of what one man could do, and it was quite a way for Cadman to cap off his career. Less than two months later, he died from his cancer.
It's also worth noting that the Liberals were on the ropes because of AdScam, because of the public perception that the party was corrupt to the point of receiving large sums of cash in envelopes. The Conservatives were eager to run an election focusing on ethics and cleaning up Ottawa. So eager, apparently, that they were willing to offer $1 million to Chuck Cadman's family to try and buy his vote.
Chuck seems like a man who hated such hypocrisy. If he had a fit, I could see why.
Still with me? Now check out this quote from the Globe:
Dona Cadman, who is now running for the Conservatives in the Vancouver-area riding of Surrey North, was not in the office at the time. But she says her husband was furious when he returned to their apartment. "Chuck was really insulted," she said in a telephone interview with The Globe yesterday. "He was quite mad about it, thinking they could bribe him with that."
Wait a minute, what did that say?
Dona Cadman, who is now running for the Conservatives
What?!
Chuck Cadman honoured his position as member of parliament. He worked hard for his constituents and he held himself at a high moral standard. If nothing else, this story proves that yet again.
But his memory comes across as somewhat tarnished by this controversy. Think for a moment what it illustrates: the Conservatives, desperate to show off the tainted Liberal record as much as possible and offer Canadians a clean alternative were engaging in a serious act of corruption from the get-go. Most sources seem to indicate that this meeting really did happen, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper knew about it. Which calls into question the integrity of the Conservative's clean-government platform, which is the main reason why the Conservative government is power at the moment.
But here we have Mrs. Chuck Cadman running for the party that had cast off her husband, and then showed their true colours in trying to buy him back. There's been no change in leadership in the Conservative party. There's no sign that the Conservative party officials who made this offer have been fired and that the current Conservative leadership wouldn't make such a corrupt offer again if the need presented itself. And she calls the move for what it is: a bribe.
For the most part, reading this transcript, Dona Cadman seems like a decent woman, but her decision to run for a party that has done this really makes me question her judgement. I'll credit her for her candid comments in this interview, but you can sense how uncomfortable she is finding it navigating these waters of hypocrisy:
Reporter: "Can I also ask you, you're running for the Tories now, does this put you in an awkward situation in terms of the party and the allegation?"
Cadman: "A little yes"
Reporter: "Have you spoken with the Prime Minister?"
Cadman: "I spoke with his office today"
Reporter: "And, what was said, if you don't mind me asking?"
Cadman: "Umm... just that they were going to release a press release."
Reporter: "Do you denouce what was offered to your husband, you said earlier you understood?"
Cadman: "Ya, I do"
Reporter: "How angry does it make you, or does it?"
Cadman: "Not as much as it did before"
Reporter: "Why is that?"
Cadman: "Time has passed"
Reporter: "Would you consider it a bribe then?"
Long pause
Cadman: "Umm...yes in a way umm huh"
Reporter: "How much regret to have telling this story, now that you are running for the Tories?"
Cadman: "None"
But the core of this interview comes in this exchange:
Reporter: "Okay, can I ask you, because it's going to be in this book that is coming up. Can I ask you what you husband told you before that critical vote?"
Cadman: "Just that two gentlemen have visited him, offered him a 1 million dollar life insurance policy and a few other things.
Reporter: "A few other things?"
Cadman: "Well, one was being welcomed back into the Conservative Party"
Reporter: "Were you surprised by that story?"
Cadman: "No, not really. It was something that any party would have done.
It was something that any party would have done.
It shows a remarkable cynicism on Ms. Cadman's part, and is possibly why she is comfortable today in running for the Conservative Party: because she doesn't feel that the Conservative actions were particularly unusual in politics. Except that the Conservatives promised that they would be different.
Canadians, we have been sold a bill of goods. The Conservative Party campaigned on cleaning up Ottawa, but has failed to do so. Harper shot down his promised public appointments commission because the opposition in this minority parliament refused to accept his sole selection for the committee's chair. He has not lifted a finger to reestablish this commission and has been handing out appointments to federal jobs like a Liberal. He rushed patronage appointments over the Christmas 2006 holidays just days before his promised Public Accountability Act took effect. And now we hear allegations that, six months before the 2006 election was called, Conservatives were willing to bribe MPs for their votes.
Why did we replace the Liberals, again? Because they were tired and corrupt. I joked at the time that we'd allowed the Liberals to govern so long because the Canadian public wanted to replace the Liberals with the Liberals.
Well, it looks like we have.
Can we have that election now, please?
February 28, 2008 8:30 PM
Two conclusions from all this:
1) Dona Cadman does not belong in Parliament under any circumstances. She clearly doesn’t have much sense of ethics or judgement, and to say that this will be a problem for her on the campaign trail in Surrey North is putting it mildly.
2) A non-confidence motion should be tabled by one of the opposition parties soon. And they had all better vote for it, since this is potential evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the CPC done with the knowledge and tacit support of the party leader. So much for the “moral authority to govern”, Steve.
In light of your previous post, Dion should (a) tell Bob Rae, David Smith, and the rest of the “nervous nellies” to quit whining and start getting ready for an election and (b) start putting together a clear platform designed around four themes, say, 1) the environment, 2) sound financial management, 3) infrastructure and research spending, and 4) delivering on the CPC’s failed mandate for meaningful political reform. I do believe that Dion has enough personal integrity to follow through on 4) in particular… though I often wonder about some other Liberals.
I don’t think he’s a weak leader, but he is relatively new one, and is up against establishment types who don’t know what to do with themselves in an opposition environment. It would be a good idea to give the Conservatives a bit of time to hang themselves on this latest development, though. How about a June election? I enjoyed the one in 2004…
February 29, 2008 2:24 AM
First of all, I’d be careful: you are stating these allegations as fact. This entire post is worded as if you believe that Dona Cadman’s story is 100% true.
Then strangely, you go on to criticize her membership in the Conservative Party.
I’m wondering if you also aware of what Mike Duffy said last night on MDL? Check it here on my blog: http://www.mikebrockonline.com/blog/2008/02/umm.html
I can see that you want this story to be true. But I would say that there is way too many surface contradictions in all this for you to be coming out and outright stating this bribe as a foregone conclusion.
Chuck Cadman denied the bribe himself, on television, while he was still alive. You leave that part out, or you’ve failed to research properly.
There’s only one human being in the world who is making this allegation: Cadman’s widow. In my book, that makes it an “allegation”, not a fact, but you Liberals seem to have a real problem with that distinction. Especially Jason Cherniak.
February 29, 2008 6:48 AM
Well, here’s an interesting few paragraphs from the CBC:
You’re projecting a bit there, Brock. I don’t particularly want these allegations to be true. But I am seeing a pattern of behaviour. Harper and his Conservatives offered Canadians a chance to clean out Ottawa, but since then he’s had a spotty legislative record on this front. Harper rushed through appointments before his accountability act took effect, and he canned his public appointments commission in a fit of pique and has done nothing since to try and bring it back.
It doesn’t seem like he’s played fair with Canadians, and with this set of allegations dating back to six months before the 2006 election, when the Liberals were in the thick of the allegations against them, when the Conservatives should have known better? That’s pretty disgusting.
February 29, 2008 7:12 AM
A few comments have been made as to what sort of insurance company would insure a dying man for $1 million? One suggestion out there is that the suspicion was that Cadman might be unwilling to take down the Liberal government and trigger an election he might not be able to fight if he ended up losing the insurance that he received as a member of parliament. Perhaps, some speculate, Cadman might be assured of voting against the government if he was offered Conservative protection and assistance in his re-election, thus maintaining his life insurance as an MP.
So, a question to be asked is: do our MPs automatically receive life insurance policies of $1 million?
February 29, 2008 9:45 AM
I’m torn about wanting an election now in light of the Cadman affair. I supported bringing the Martin government down, and even though I never thought Goodale did anything illegal, I can’t say I was very perturbed by the NDP making it an election issue, as I still voted for them. However, look where all that got us.
It would be great to have an election fought over real issues and platforms, but maybe that is incredibly naive. On one hand, I’m really worried about the Harper government and how the political discourse is dumbing down, so I think we need an election when Harper is most vulnerable. I also tend to think that voters shouldn’t put up with blantantly unethical (possibly illegal) behaviour, no matter how many elections we need to send that message. On the other hand, I really would like to see an election fought on a higher plane. Maybe that won’t come until we have a government where scandals aren’t touching the sitting PM and Ministers.
February 29, 2008 10:46 AM
Story on the CBC this morning: Cadman’s daughter supports the allegation. It seems her father spoke to her and his wife on separate occasions about the proposed $1 million policy gift. So it’s not just one voice speaking.
February 29, 2008 11:04 AM
P.S. Mike: I’m not a Liberal. I haven’t voted for them since 1997, and I don’t intend to now.
February 29, 2008 1:03 PM
In case I gave the wrong impression above, I’m not a Liberal either, and am making no plans to vote for them for the foreseeable future. I still want them to get their act together and help torpedo this government, however.
February 29, 2008 1:37 PM
I was questioning the veracity of this story when I first heard it. Two things since revealed have moved it a lot further along to credibility in my mind.
As James points out (as have many others all over the Internet abuzz with this) Mr. Harper is on tape discussing “financial considerations” for Mr. Cadman.
Now Mr. Cadman’s daughter has come out publicly supporting her mother’s version of events.
But there’s no paper trail, no money exchanged hands no concrete proof. So we will never “know” the truth for sure. Me, I’m inclined to believe the story, but it will all be left up to the individual to decide “the truth”. Which means, no one will hang for this.
And thats the saddest part of this tale to me. It will never be reconciled.
March 1, 2008 10:15 AM
Election?
Elections are fun.
Bring it on!
March 1, 2008 7:35 PM
You may find this link informative
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMjgYg-6gyJ2ixjYeauZ0F4xtyHA
…it appears that it would cost a insuree more then a million dollars to insure for a million, under ANY plan. In addition, Cadman would already receive $300,000 from his current MP Life Insurance Policy. He could NOT receive insurance from the CPC party, even if he wanted, for more than one reason. See article. Apparently this is well known in MP circles, and the more I look into it, the more I see there is little to it. I suppose its like the old saying, “throw enough ** and some is bound to stick.”
-Ian
March 3, 2008 7:11 AM
Hey did you see this tape from Cadman himself! “On Friday, an interview surfaced that lent credence to the Cadman family’s claims.In a June 12, 2005, interview on Vancouver radio station CKNW, Cadman told the Globe and Mail’s Dan Cook the Tories did, in fact, make him financial offers days before the crucial vote.”
“There was certainly some, you know, some offers made and some things along those lines about not opposing me and helping out with the finances of the campaign and that sort of thing. But, again, you know, that’s all part of the deal that goes on. It’s what happens, especially in a minority situation,” Cadman says.”