Pat Martin: Let the RCMP Investigate the Cadman Scandal First

Using the terms "treason" and "high crimes and misdemeanors", NDP MP Pat Martin told Craig Oliver on Sunday's Question Period that he will not introduce a motion to the ethics committee this week, as he had previously promised, to investigate the alleged $1 million bribe to now-deceased MP Chuck Cadman. Instead, Martin said that he thinks the RCMP should handle the file because any Conservatives involved in the affair who would testify before the committee would be protected by parliamentary privilege (ie. their testimony could not be used against them in a criminal prosecution). Martin left open the possibility of having the ethics committee hold hearings at a later date, following the results of the RCMP probe.

On Saturday, Peter Mackay denied any knowledge of the alleged bribe.

"I think it's sad, quite frankly, that this seems to have come up. It's very unfortunate.''

You bet it's "unfortunate" and that's just the least of it for your party, MacKay.

Related:

Liberals float theory on Cadman compensation
 

Glorifying Prince Harry and the Afghanistan War

Via The Independent - some sorely-needed truth:

So if the Army is blinkered in its lust for action, and lied to by its government, surely the media are there to point out unpleasant truths. At this point the images of Prince Harry blasting away on a machine gun seem dangerously close to propaganda. While his bravery and commitment are beyond doubt, his 10-week stint in Helmand has revealed itself as a PR recruiting stunt, cooked up by the MoD and facilitated by the media's collusion.

Rather than highlighting the appalling truths about the war in Helmand, the media, dazzled by the heroic ideal that Prince Harry so perfectly embodies, perpetuate the myth that this is a just war fit for heroes. The frenzy of coverage in Friday's papers (with the conspicuous exception of this newspaper) was facile; "Watch Prince Harry fighting in Helmand," proffered one broadsheet website.

This is war reduced to entertainment, willingly ignorant of the truth that young men like Harry, both British and Afghan, are dying violent pointless deaths in Helmand province. Outrage is the only response to this, not entertainment.

So now you want an election?

The Liberals have been handed many reasons over the past few months to call for an early election, the most recent being the Cadman scandal. The TO Star reports that "Liberal MPs are openly musing about toppling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government". Fine. But why weren't they "openly musing" about an election when they found out that the military is handing over Afghan prisoners to people who might torture them again? Why are they leaving it to groups like Amnesty International to raise the red flag inherent in such a move? What has changed in the 4 short months since the hand overs were halted?

As inviting as it may be to force the Cons into an election over the Cadman affair, investigations have yet to even begin. There is, however, much more evidence and reason to be concerned when it comes to possibly handing over Afghan citizens to be tortured in shady prisons. Why isn't that worth calling an election over?
 

Is Harper Interfering in the US Election?

That's the question that immediately came to mind when I read this ABC News story which names Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, as the person who leaked the Obama/NAFTA story to CTV on Wednesday. Here's the money quote from that article that has denials and non-denials being flung about so carelessly now:

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

According to ABC News:

Both the Canadian Embassy and the Obama campaign have repeatedly denied the CTV report.

However, a source close to the Canadian prime minister's office tells ABC News that the original communication was between Austan Goolsbee, Obama's senior economic adviser and an economics professor at the University of Chicago, and Georges Rioux, Canada's consul general in Chicago, about Obama's rhetoric against NAFTA.

According to the source, Wilson exaggerated the communication between the Obama campaign and the Canadian official during discussions this week with Ian Brodie, the prime minister's chief of staff, who leaked the story to CTV.

I had suspected from the outset that the Harper government was the source of that story since any talk of reforming NAFTA obviously has them worried - to the point where David Emerson threatened that oil and other energy resources might be on the table if a future Democratic president insisted on renegotiating the agreement - as both Clinton and Obama said they would during Tuesday nite's Ohio debate.

Putting aside the accusations flying back and forth between the campaigns, our government and various other unnamed sources, what we clearly have here is Harper's chief of staff trying to influence the Democratic primaries. NAFTA is a huge issue in states like Ohio and Texas, which are holding their primaries next Tuesday. And, with Emerson issuing his threats this week, it looks like it's a very coordinated effort coming straight from the top.

Related:

The latest CTV News update: Obama campaign mum on NAFTA contact with Canada



The TO Star: Double-teaming NAFTA, for now

Susan Delacourt: Sourcing a cross-border smear. She notes what I spotted as well - you have someone "close to the Prime Minister's office" apparently slamming Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson. What's that about? Or are they all just so bloody incompetent that they have absolutely no idea what they're even talking about anymore? She's also posted an e-mail by Bob Rae on the entire affair. "This is Republican International in action," Rae writes.

(h/t to steve9631 at Daily Kos for pointing the way to the ABC News story.)
 

Updates on the Cadman Scandal

Accusations, more denials, investigations, audio-taped interviews, non-confidence motion speculation, bullying, ethical lapses, holier-than-thou pronouncements, proclamations of "nothing to see here, folks" - and that's just what's happened since the story about Dona Cadman's allegations of bribery to the tune of $1 million in the form of an insurance policy for her dying husband Chuck were made on Wednesday.

It's all been rather fast and furious and there's still much more to come.

- On Friday, Chuck Cadman's daughter Jodi backed up her mother's assertions when she was interviewed by CBC News: story and video here (Watch the other interview videos as well.)

- The Globe & Mail reports rumours of possible non-confidence motions to bring the government down over the scandal - as early as next week when the NDP might use their opposition day to make their move. The G&M story also has a 2005 audio-taped interview with Chuck Cadman about the offers he received (no specifics mentioned).

“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,” Mr. Cadman says.

To add fuel to the growing fire, they also report that Cadman's son-in-law backs up the allegations.

And take a look at this lowbrow response from Sandra Buckler:

Asked what financial considerations Mr. Harper was talking about on the tape, and what case did he tell the party emissaries to make, the prime minister's communications director ducked the questions.

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 Mr. 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.”

Ms. Buckler did not reply to a second e-mail asking her to respond to the two original questions.

And she's an official government spokesperson? Using language like that? She sounds like a vice cop.

Furthermore, there's no "bootlegging" involved. The author owns the rights to that interview and can do whatever he wants to with it. Educate yourself on the law, Ms Buckler. We already know you're just Harper's handy spokespuppet who will say anything to shield your boss.

As for Harper, here's what he told the book's author:

Author Tom Zytaruk taped an interview with Mr. Harper in September 2005 for his soon-to-be-released biography of Cadman. On the scratchy 2:37 recording, Mr. Harper, leader of the Opposition at the time, confirms party officials made a financial appeal to Mr. Cadman.

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

Mr. Harper said he wasn't optimistic about their chances of persuading Mr. Cadman — a former Tory MP who had left the party to sit as an Independent MP — to vote with the Tories to bring down Mr. Martin's government, he urged two people “legitimately representing the party” to tread cautiously.

“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 I said, ‘Don't press it'.”

So he knew that party officials were trying to buy Cadman's way back into the Conservative party. As the opposition stated on Friday, [The]PM incriminated himself on tape over alleged Cadman bribe.

The ethics committee is set to deal with motions calling for an inquiry into this scandal on Tuesday. In the meantime, the RCMP are also on the case.

No matter how the Conservatives try to spin this, trying to entice a dying man with financial incentives to back their party is bound to leave most Canadians absolutely disgusted. The Cons won't be able to wiggle, bully or spin their way out of that reality.
 

Quote du Jour: The "Jihad" Against Brian Mulroney

Apparently, radical Islamofascists are after Brian Mulroney.

Via the CBC:

Earlier in the day, Mulroney's spokesman, Robin Sears, urged the Commons ethics committee to quickly end its "partisan" probe into the former prime minister's business affairs, suggesting it was part of a "15-year jihad" against him.

"This has been like a 15-year jihad against Mulroney and his family by his enemies — led by Mr. Schreiber and enabled by some in the media," Sears told CBC News.

"It is time to bring this to a close. There really is no case left to answer."

Right. You wish.

Anyway, apparently the ethics committee members, Karlheinz Schreiber, the Canadian media and anyone who has ever criticized Mulroney are all radical Muslim, jihad-issuing clerics. Who knew?
 

Chuck Cadman's Widow Alleges $1 Million Bribe

The widow of Chuck Cadman has alleged that Conservative party officials attempted to bribe her husband to the tune of $1 million to stop him from propping up the Martin government in 2005.

During question period today, Harper said he'd looked into this himself and decided there was "absolutely no truth in it". This obviously begs the question: Why would Harper take it upon himself to investigate such a serious charge? In politics appearances are everything and if Harper had any political sense, he would have turned this matter over to the appropriate officials right off the bat. Instead, he chose to cover it up and now the Conservatives are accusing Cadman's widow, a member and candidate of their party, of lying. The denials were flying fast and furious during Thursday's questions and, as one opposition MP said in response to Peter Van Loan's flailing, "Me thinks you dost protest too much".

Via the Globe & Mail:

In a statement released Thursday, Tory campaign director Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political science professor who is a close friend and former campaign chief of Mr. Harper, confirmed that they met with Mr. Cadman on May 19, 2005 to discuss his possible re-admission to the Conservative caucus – a fact “widely known in political circles” and on the public record, they said.

The statement does not address the insurance policy allegation, but suggests televised remarks by Mr. Cadman made later that day puts the matter to rest.

“We offered ways that we – as campaign officials – could help Mr. Cadman in the Conservative nomination process, and if successful, wage a competitive campaign in a general election,” the statement said.

“Later that evening, Mr. Cadman confirmed our offer of campaign assistance to a national television audience and further confirmed that this offer was ‘the only offer on anything.' As the record shows, Mr. Cadman declined our offer to re-join the Conservative Caucus.”

Mr. Harper is quoted in the book, Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, as confirming that a visit took place, and that officials were “legitimately” representing the Conservative Party. But he said any offer to Mr. Cadman was only to defray losses he might incur in an election. A copy of the manuscript, including an introduction by former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, has been obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Here is Dona Cadman's version of the events:

According to the book, two Conservative officials arrived at Mr. Cadman's Ottawa office two days before the vote on the Liberal budget. It was apparent at that time that the House of Commons was evenly split on the money bill and the nod of the then-Independent MP would decide whether Mr. Martin's Liberal government would survive. “The Tories actually walked in with a list of offers written down on a piece of paper. Included in their proposal was a $1-million life insurance policy – no small carrot for a man with advanced cancer,” the book states.

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.”

Mr. Cadman died less than two months after the vote.

Ms. Cadman, who has read and approved the manuscript for the book, said she has “no idea” where the money for the life insurance was supposed to come from. “They had the form there. Chuck just had to sign.”

This is extremely serious business and won't be going away anytime soon, as much as the Conservatives would like it to and as much as they believe that simply shouting it down in the house of commons will make it disappear.

Stephane Dion announced today that the Liberals have "sent a letter to the police [RCMP]" to launch a proper investigation. NDP MP Pat Martin has asked for an ethics committee inquiry.

I'll bet the Conservatives are now wishing they'd managed to force a new election a few months ago considering just how damaging this could end up being to their party. It's a no-win situation for them since, in order to refute these allegations, they'll have to keep insisting that Dona Cadman, one of their own, is a liar. Such accusations against the widow of a much-respected MP will not do them any favours. Add that to the fact that Harper seems to think his dismissal of the allegations were enough to bury this story and you have a situation where he has set himself up to appear ethically-challenged (again). This is yet another example of abuse of power by this Conservative government.

Stock up on popcorn. This one is going to be nasty.

Related:

Steve at Far and Wide asks a good question: Why Do The Conservatives Allow Liars To Run For Office?
 

Canadian Embassy Officials Contradict Each Other on Obama/NAFTA Story

As I wrote here last nite, CTV news reported that an Obama staffer contacted Michael Wilson, the US ambassador to Canada, to reassure him about Obama's NAFTA "campaign rhetoric".

Now we have two conflicting accounts of what happened from two different embassy officials.

Via Politico:

Canadians deny Obama call

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we’re concerned," he said.

That's a much stronger denial that the one issued by the Obama campaign:

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

And via TPM:

"No, none," Norton told me when I asked him if Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., had spoken to any Obama advisers recently. He added: "Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson about NAFTA."

Norton did allow, however, that the embassy on the staff level had discussed multiple issues, including NAFTA, with the Obama and Hillary campaigns at various times, and had urged them to look at NAFTA in a positive light.

"We've impressed upon them the fact that NAFTA has been good for all three countries," Norton said. "They have made it clear that NAFTA is an issue of contention in the [U.S.], and that inevitably there would be discussion and debate surrounding NAFTA."

"They've heard us out on the issue of NAFTA and expressed understanding for our position. But the candidates and their campaigns have been very careful to refrain from making specific commitments," Norton continued, reiterating that no such conversation like the one described in the Canadian TV report ever happened.

So, who's telling the truth here? Tristan Landry? Ray Norton? CTV News? The Obama campaign? Without further information, (there is nothing about this story on Obama's official website), the only way to know is to see exactly what happens if Obama becomes the president.

Related:

Taylor Marsh reports that she has contacted CTV and they are sticking to their story.

"The facts of our story are accurate." - Greg McIsaac, Communications Manager, News Information and Current Affairs, CTV

Update, March 5, 2008:

I see from my referrals that I'm getting a lot of visitors to this post which was featured on Reuters' site. I've posted the latest news about this issue here. This story has developed on many fronts since I wrote this post so I'd urge those who are interested in keeping up to read my latest posts as I put them up. Thanks. And thanks for visiting. Feel free to leave a comment or two.
-catnip
 

NAFTA: What the Obama Campaign Secretly Told Canada's Government

CTV News reveals that an Obama staffer was secretly in touch with Canada's ambassador to the US with a heads up about Obama's public stance on the NAFTA agreement, stating it was just "campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value".

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

What Obama's staffer told Wilson flies in the face of what Obama said during Tuesday nite's Democratic debate in Ohio, where NAFTA fallout has seriously affected the economy.

During Tuesday nite's Democratic debate, Barack Obama said this about NAFTA:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you did in 2004 talk to farmers and suggest that NAFTA had been helpful. The Associated Press today ran a story about NAFTA, saying that you have been consistently ambivalent towards the issue. Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, "This has not worked for us; we are out"?

SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.

That statement prompted Canada-wide concern with the trade minister even warning that our energy deals with the US might be on the table as a result.

The reaction from the Obama campaign that someone on its staff had been in touch with Ambassador Wilson?

Via CTV - a non-denial denial:

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

The Clinton campaign was also accused of contacting Wilson to reassure him. That charge that has been staunchly denied by going further than the Obama campaign did and granting the Canadian government "immunity" to release any information it might have of any actual contact from its staff that may have been made.

So, the obvious question is whether Obama's opposition to NAFTA is genuine or is it just a ploy to get votes from people who oppose it?

Stay tuned.

Update:

See my update here.
 

Quotes du Jour: Flaherty v Dion on the Budget

Yes, that's right. Today you get 2 quotes for the price of one because they're both incredibly boneheaded on the same subject: Budget 2008.

First up, Mr Stingy:

“Sir John A. Macdonald used to say ‘look a little ahead my friends.' And if we look a little bit ahead, we see how morally deficient it is for us to live high on the hog now and pass our debt on to the next generation,” Mr. Flaherty told a breakfast audience in Toronto.

I suppose you might to have to go back to Sir John A's time to find a period when Conservatives weren't spending like drunken sailors while the Liberals had to bail them out and sober them up later.

And then there's Stephane:

'We'll find a way to not defeat the government'

I've misplaced my Dion to catnip translator but what immediately comes to mind is "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!!!"

And we all know how that turned out.