Umm...

If anything this COMPLETELY implicated the Conservative Party. Now we know why Harper offered Cadman the million dollars. I can't believe Stephen Harper would have the tenacity to tug on the heartstrings of a dying man like that. Harper is an evil man.

If anything this COMPLETELY implicated the Conservative Party

I don't agree. It may setup a motive, but if anything, it only seems to me, to back up what Stephen Harper said: that they simply told him if it was a matter of financial issues, the Conservatives could see what they could do to compensate him in the event of an election. That however, doesn't necessarily constitute a bribe.

I think there is a fine line in situations like this, as to what constitutes a bribe. I think it's quite nuanced.

If what the Conservatives were saying was: vote down the government, and will give you money... that's a bribe.

If what the Conservatives were saying was: if you want to vote against the government, but feel you can't, because of financial issues, and you'd be interested in rejoining the Conservative caucus, we'd be interested in talking about how we could accomedate you... that's not quite a bribe. It's saying, if you feel you can't do the right thing because of your life situation, we'll catch you when you fall.

The difference is very nuanced. But there is a difference.

Sorry Brock, but when it comes to matters of "ethics" there is not such thing as "nuance". Stop being a hack.

I think that comment demonstrates who is being the "hack" here.

I've posted this elsewhere and will post it here too.
I listened to the interview with Dona Cadman on MDL and she didn't sound like a political candidate. Usually you can't shut a candidate up but it was like pulling teeth trying to get anything from her. I actually felt sorry for the interviewer. I'm wondering if she was the right choice in her riding.
I liked Chuck Cadman as an MP, his style and his attitude, but it sounds to me like he sold his principles for double indemnity.
Such a shame.
Further to the above, if he was concerned about losing the double indemnity clause in his parlimentary insurance policy then that says to me that he actually wanted to vote against the government thereby defeating it and throwing the country into another election.
Instead he voted with the government thereby ensuring that his wife would benefit financially.
His name is going to be dragged through the mud and that is such a shame.
NeilD

"Now we know why Harper offered Cadman the million dollars"

Soooo Jacob - it has gone from an alleged offer of a million dollar insurance policy (which any thinking person knows would be impossible for a person in his health to get - but don't let that fact get in your way) to a simple million dollars.

Jacob - this makes no sense on so many levels, however your rose colored glasses will most likely prevent you from understanding everything that is wrong with this situation.

But let me try OK Let's put things in perspective shall we?

Chuck Cadman himself - on tape - admited that NO other offers had been made.

Chuck Cadman himself admitted to Mike Duffy that he could not afford to lose his insurance so would be voting with the Liberals

Now it comes out that one of the pre-copies of the book went to Paul Martin (hmmmmm) kinda fishy Jacob - ya gotta admit.

Chuck's wife is only going on what Chuck told her - we can't go back and analyze the conversation. Was Chuck pissed about an offer of a million dollar ins. policy or the offer to help him out if he crossed the floor. We will never know.

So Jacob - in retrospect - here we have an author who writes a book destined for the $5 table at Chapters because, after all - no matter how much we all liked Chuck Cadman - it wasnot going to be a best seller - we have a meeting between 3 people - one of whom is dead and two whom say no insurance policy was offered.

And Jacob - here isthe real kicker - No insurance company would write a policy for someone dying of Cancer!

Oh - and Jacob - perhaps you could answer as to WHY this is coming out NOW - if this was such a scandal and such a big deal why not bring it out in 2006 during the election. Surely when the polls were so close - something like this would have given Paul Martin the boost he so desperately needed.

This just seems a little too convenient,Jacob.

Alberta Girl,

It's really simple: I don't trust the Conservatives at all. My personal view of the Conservatives is that they would do ANYTHING to get power, they would lie, cheat, and steal. It's the way they are. If you want proof of this: Look at Bush, look at Mulroney, look at Reagan, look at Thatcher, etc.

People on the right are motivated by money and power, and money equals power.

It's sad that we haven't evolved beyond this in our society.

Jacob, you and Ti-Guy from over at bigcitylib.blogspot.com should get married. You're perfect for each other. You subscribe to the same hateful, irrational and pseudo-intelligent thought process.

"My personal view of the Conservatives is that they would do ANYTHING to get power, they would lie, cheat, and steal."

Well then we will agree to disagree because you have pin pointed my veiw of Liberals - they would do anything for power - they lie, they cheat, they steal.

And yet Jacob, Dion and the Liberals have done absolutley NOTHING to defeat this oh so terrible Tory Government that "lies, cheats, and steals". Why is that Jacob? Why do the Liberals support such an evil Tory Government or walk away or sit down when the time comes to act to defeat them? Care to enlighten us?

*
"jacob says... My personal view of the Conservatives is that they would do ANYTHING to get power, they would lie, cheat, and steal. It's the way they are. If you want proof of this: look at Bush, look at Mulroney, look at Reagan, look at Thatcher, etc."

well, my friend... it seems you're confusing a paranoid-delusion with actual proof.

imagine trying this out in a courtroom...

judge: please tell us jacob... did you witness the actual crime being committed?

jacob: not exactly, judge... but "look at bush, look at mulroney, look at reagan, look at thatcher..."

good luck with that, bobo.

*

neo,

We've clearly seen that's exactly how Liberal logic works: bad reputation makes you a liar, even a reputation that is bad in a purely subjective sense, such as reputation viewed through the lens of ideological difference:.

...Mark Lemire is a racist, and therefore a liar...

...Stephan Harper is a conservative, and therefore a criminal...

Of course, in formal logic, this type of reasoning is known as both an ad hominem argument and an association fallacy.

Psychology tells us that people regress into these categories of logical fallacy principally due to emotional, not rational considerations.

It is because of this that I would reason that Jacob, Ti-Guy, M. J. Murphy, and all others who actually subscribe to such logic, are themselves motived by hate.

Brock, stop trying to show us how educated you are. It has the opposite effect: you look dumb.

neo, I'm afraid courts take into consideration the reputation of all witnesses and even the reputation of the accused. It's why there are character witnesses, etc. You, like Brock, are not as intelligent as you think you are.

Alberta Girl, sure let's agree to disagree. Reading your blather bores me anyways.

As a matter of fact, this whole blog bores me. Good night everybody!

Hey Jacob, come back anytime! Your condescending and dismissive prose really adds to the debate.

As strange as it seems, I think perhaps everyone may be telling the truth as they see it. The late Chuck Cadman said the Conservatives offered him a guaranteed riding and to cover his finances. He said this was the only offer and no others were on the table. Chuck Cadman told Duffy he was in fact very concerned about losing his life insurance in an election, life insurance he received as a sitting MP. Stephen Harper understood that two members of the Conservative party believed Cadman was worried about finances in the event of an election. He knew they went to Cadman and told him if you want to vote with the Conservative party but are concerned about financial issues; we are open to covering your finances and compensating you for any financial loss in the event of an election should you choose to vote with the Conservative party. Stephen Harper also told these two men he thought they were wasting their time because Chuck had already made up his mind. The Conservative party says today they did not offer Chuck a bribe or a million dollar insurance policy.

Suppose the Conservatives offered to compensate Chuck for his finances: which would include a lost insurance policy of unknown amount. I.E, if Chuck’s insurance policy was lost they would pay what the insurance policy should have paid. This is not an insurance policy in itself because real insurance is done through a company, but it is compensation for loss of an existing insurance policy.

Does this constitute a bribe? I can see this being argued both ways. On the one hand it is an offer of money, but on the other hand it is really only compensation to cover financial loss. It is not enticing him to vote so much as potentially removing a concern for him if that was the way he wanted to vote.

Note that I am leaving Donna Cadman out of the equation so far. That is because her statement is the strangest and most contradictory thing I have ever heard from a politician. She is the only one who says there was a million dollar insurance policy. With all due respect to Donna Cadman, she doesn’t seem to be that bright judging by the interview. I don’t believe she is lying but I think she may have gotten the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps Chuck Cadman’s insurance would have paid a million dollars out, and the Conservative party had offered to compensate that if the company did not pay. On the one hand, Donna Cadman said she understood why the Conservative party offered this and would have expected that from any party, on the other hand she said she was angry about it. On yet another hand she said she was less angry now... that she believes it was a bribe “in a way” and yet she can’t possibly be that angry or believe it was that much of a bribe and still be running for the Conservative party. The only conclusion I get from this is that Donna Cadman appears to be a very strange woman.

So the main question is: would this offer entice Cadman to vote a certain way, or just remove a financial obstacle if voting that way was truly his intention? It is certainly a fine line, but I personally lean towards the latter conclusion.

"Alberta Girl, sure let's agree to disagree. Reading your blather bores me anyways.

As a matter of fact, this whole blog bores me. Good night everybody!"

Well - now I know that Jacob and Ti-guy should get married -they most likely are one in the same person.

Typical - no debating with that guy - just go home when the debate proves him wrong.

And what about all the Liberal hacks that stayed with Martin until they qualified for the Golden Handshake as Shelia Copps did and many other bottom feeders wanting a Indexed-pension and gold-plated health care that us canadians can afford or can't get because it's Illegal.

I was just reading the CTV version of events, and this particular part caught my eye -
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=a6631e85-799a-4d9e-86fe-792d3b123f2a

('Publisher Howard White said the leak didn't come from his office, adding the excerpts he's seen quoted in the media come from an older version of the manuscript.

"It must have been from one of the reviewers that the author had contacted," he said.

White said Zytaruk sent versions of the manuscript to a few friends, as well as Paul Martin.')

Sent "versions" of the manuscript, and that the quotes are from an "older version". So just how many times was this manuscript rewritten and by whom?

I guess we should wait to hear further elucidation from Mrs. Cadman. I know M.P.'s are well compensated (and it seems they just voted themselves more money if I rightly heard something on the radio, despite the austerity budget), but maybe there should be some sort of transition insurance set up for just this sort of situation.

But things turned out for the best when the Martin government didn't fall since Canadians got to see more of Mr. Dithers and started to prefer Harper. Same thing with Belinda's changing sides.

Mike Duffy's little gem that he shared tonight is quite astonishing in many ways. Why did he choose to divulge this information tonight? Why not after the vote, or after Cadman passed away?

I think he is feeling somewhat obliged to show that Cadman was indeed concerned about the life insurance and that he didn't want to take any chances with an election and no longer being a sitting MP.

Quite possibly Finley and Flanegan suggested that somehow Dona would be looked after in that event, but Chuck likely didn't want any part of being part of the Conservative party. Possibly he was angry about the tiff that went on years earlier. I can't remember the details, but he was ticked off. Maybe that's what he was angry about - that they would dare to ask him to come back. Who knows?

Joanne

Chuck was a Reform/Conservative MP who lost the riding nomination when a high profile multicultural candidate came in with a whole bunch of new members. Chuck then ran as an independent and won. Chuck was more of a social activist than politician. It wasn't that the Conservatives didn't want him its just that under the party rules he lost the nomination.

This is a sad story but if the Liberals are so outraged then defeat the government. I think this another way for the CBC and Globe and Mail to manipulate the vote for Vancouver Quadra. Earlier this week Gloria Galloway suggested on MDL that the Liberals were in trouble in Vancouver.
It just makes you wonder how low the Liberals would be in the polls without the help of CBC and Globe and Mail.

Does anyone know how much a MP's widow(er) would receive if the MP dies in office?

It must be a lot if Cadman turned down a million dollars.

Either that or Cadman never received an offer of a million dollars.

Well -- we may not have to ponder this issue for long -- the Grand Inquisitors (ethics committee) are thinking of investigating this issue now that Shrieber/Mulroney is slipping off the table. I think this would be absolutely appalling if they ended up calling people like Cadman's wife as a witness -- and surely they would have to. If they go down this route, they are more crass than I would have previously thought.

Jacob, you and Ti-Guy from over at bigcitylib.blogspot.com should get married. You're perfect for each other. You subscribe to the same hateful, irrational and pseudo-intelligent thought process.

Leave me out of your little narratives, Brock. I dismissed you as a credulous and largely witless hysteric long ago.

Alberta Girl (a wee bit off topic here, sorry), kudos to you for straying from the usual conservative group-think and condoning gay marriage.

You're more open minded than I would have guessed, and I apologize for pre-judging you.

Crabgrass - I have nothing against "gay marriage" - my beef is with the "forcing" it into churches and schools.

Just because one disagrees with How someone goes about something, does not mean they disagree with the act.

That however, is a topic for another day so as not to derail the topic of this post.

Um... I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is that an MP's Life Insurance policy covers them for a value of twice their annual salary. Now I'm not sure how much an MP's salary was at the time; but it certainly wasn't $500K (it's not there yet even now). If the amount of the life insurance policy which was offered is correct, and I don't have any reason to presume that it isn't, wouldn't that make the offer significantly larger than Cadman's supposed financial burden?

An arrogant, foul-mouthed pseud said: "Leave me out of your little narratives, Brock. I dismissed you as a credulous and largely witless hysteric long ago."

LOL.....projection at it's finest. What fun it would be to probe the recesses of this stale twinkie's muddled dome for some semblance of sentience......actually, scratch that, it would be like looking for a shiny penny at the bottom of a two-hole shithouse, lol....

Couldn't the truth be as simple as Harper's explanation, at least as he knew it? Offer Cadman a safe conservative seat, no chance of losing in an election, no chance of losing his insurance. Cadman's wife confuses or at least doesn't understand how Chuck gets to keep the insurance, after all, things were very tense back then. Later on, at least in her mind, she thinks is was a straight up, but impractical offer of a non existant insurance plan.

The only way that Cadman can continue to be held up as an MP of model integrity is if he voted to keep Martin&Co in power based on principle.

If Cadman refused to let the government fall simply because of his life insurance policy then that completely shreds his political integrity and draws into question his personal integrity.

If Cadman honestly felt he was being bribed and didn't report the criminal activity to the RCMP then that shreds his personal integrity and draws into question his political integrity.

If Cadman voted on principle and the CPC offered to help him out in the event he lost in an election then this is absolutely the biggest non-story of the year thus far.

Hm.. so we have the widow saying this insurance offer was true, the daughter corroborates it, and now the son-in-law does too. And all the Cons. can come up with is some lame assertion that the whole taped interview of Harper needs to be played to put it in context?

Really, really,lame guys. What's next.. you folks going to claim the whole Cadman family are a bunch of liars?

So, according to Mike Duffy, Cadman didn't care about right or wrong. He voted to make his position as an MP secure so his family would a bigger insurance payout when he died.

Since Cadman was selling his vote anyway, perhaps the Conservatives said why not sell it to us.

Ironically, then, in buying Cadman's vote, the Conservatives might have been relieving him of his desperate need for cash so that he would vote against his conscience instead of compromising his integrity to get insurance money.