Mike Duffy: “Can I share something with you, which I haven’t shared publicly until now? … And that is in private conversations with me, Chuck Cadman told me, that there was no way he was going to vote against the Martin government, because he was concerned of the potential impact it might have on the insurance settlement for his wife Dona. In other words: if he died while a sitting MP, Chuck told me, ‘that would double or virtually double the payout to his widow’ and he didn’t ‘dare take a risk forcing an election’, even if he was confident of being elected, for fear of some legal hassle involving an insurance payout …”Duffy suggests that Cadman told him he would not bring down the government for fear it would affect his benefits as a member. Since Cadman was dying, the motive may have been selfish, but understandable.
The next quote comes from Stephen Harper in 2005:
When Zytaruk asked Harper whether he knew of the offer, Harper said: "I don't know the details. I knew that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"Harper appears to confirm Duffy's story that Cadman was not going to vote against the government out of fears that he was going to lose his benefits (his government insurance policy) if he voted down the government. So, it looks like the Tories we going to offer Cadman a substitute policy to allow Cadman to vote with them rather than the government. With the event seemingly established, the only question to answer is, is this a crime? Hat tip to BCer in Tononto.
Zytaruk told Harper that the interview was "not for the newspaper. This is for the book."
Harper said: "I can tell you that I had told the individuals – I mean, they wanted to do it – but I told them they were wasting their time.
"I said Chuck had made up his mind he was going to vote with the Liberals. I knew why, and I respected the decision, but they were convinced there was financial issues ... but I said that's not going to change the decision," Harper said.
"I said `Don't press him, I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity, and ... if that's what you say, make the case,' but I said `Don't press it.'
"We had all kinds of our guys were calling him and trying to persuade him, but I just had concluded that that's where he stood and respected that," Harper said.
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 (emphasis mine).
Update: The Liberals agree with me, which is scary. But, given the above two quotes, it is the only reasonable explanation. If the Tories have a better one, I am ready to hear it. Recommend this Post
Let's see, we will assume Cadman was lying about his motives for the vote (because Duffy said he was) and that the Conservatives were only offering him a million dollars to compensate for the potential loss of about $150,000 in life insurance and you think this clears things up? How so?
ReplyDeleteIt clears up the issue, as far as I am concerned. It looks to me, as someone who really doesn't give a hoot, that Cadman was worried about the financial situation his wife was going to face when he was dead. This seems to have been widely known. Duffy said he knew about it and Harper quite clearly says he had heard about it. The issue of whether or not an offer was made seems to be laid to rest. It looks very much to me that the Tories knew Cadman was worried about the loss of his insurance and stepped in to let him know that if he voted with them he would not have to worry about the insurance. So, the question about the offer seems to be pretty clear. Now, is that a crime? Who knows. I am not a lawyer. But it is clear an offer was made as a way of easing Cadman's mind about voting against the government, taking into consideration Cadman's stated motive for not bringing on an election.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I consider Mike Duffy a reliable source for anything. What's more, if the Tories made a financial offer to Cadman in exchange for his vote, it becomes no less a bribe if it was predicated on Cadman's financial insecurity in the event of an election. A bribe is a bribe.
ReplyDeleteJosh, I agree with BCer in Toronto. In trying to play down the whole scandal, Duffy has introduced corroborating evidence instead. I don't trust Duffy not to spin Conservative, but this time I think he has inadvertently blurted out the truth. The Tories appear to have offered Cadman a deal involving insurance. I will leave it to the courts to decide if that is a crime, but the facts look pretty clear.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Mrs. Cadman and her daughter, a son-in-law has now confirmed this story. Kady O'Malley has an entry in her Macleans blog entitled "Clan Cadman: Family of Oddly Specific and Internally Consistent Pathological Liars?"
ReplyDeleteFester, the considered tone of your comments--or do you prefer "measured"?--has me worried. Where's the counter-intuitive moral compass that guided us all through the shoals of Advanced Cataloguing?
"Coco Butter" has left the building. ;)
ReplyDelete