Blog - Movies | Blog - Music | Blog - Politics | Blog - Quickies | Blog - Sports

Blog - Politics

February 29, 2008

Subpoena everyone connected to the Chuck Cadman bribe allegations, including Stephen Harper

By Charlie Smith

When the Liberal sponsorship scandal was going full tilt, the Globe and Mail frequently hammered away on this on the front page.

But when the widow and the daughter of a respected former B.C. MP claim that the Conservatives tried to pay a $1-million insurance policy for a vote, the Globe and Mail somehow managed to bury this story within the pages of the paper.

The slavishly pro-Stephen Harper National Post also didn't put this story on its front page on Thursday or Friday, even though Chuck Cadman's widow Dona claims her husband was offered the benefit for voting against the 2005 Liberal budget.

Last night's At Issue panel on CBC's national news similiarly underplayed the story with all three commentators—Maclean's mouthpiece Andrew Coyne, the Toronto Star's Chantal Hebert, and CanWest's Don Martin—more or less tossing it aside, just as they do with many other serious concerns about the Harper government's policies, including the war in Afghanistan.

The trio tried to convey an impression that the Cadman tale was a strange story—that it was a bit too peculiar for anyone to draw conclusions because the man at the centre of the controversy, Chuck Cadman, died two years ago.

Coyne even managed to get in a dig at Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh for having the audacity to speak publicly in light of allegations made against him by former Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal. Memo to Andrew: this is about the conduct of the party in power.

These allegations are extremely serious, though you wouldn't get that from Don Martin's grin and overall demeanour on TV last night.

Cadman's daughter Jodi comes across as very credible when she says that her father's revelations made her cry. The fact that two of Harper's most trusted confidants—Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley—say they only offered to help Cadman's nomination process if he joined the fold does not come close to answering all the questions.

In a statement issued by the Conservative party yesterday, Flanagan and Finley referred to a meeting on May 19, 2005 in Cadman's office.

Maybe Cadman's widow and wife are talking about a separate meeting with Conservative officials. Maybe this meeting was with different officials than Flanagan and Finley.

The Harper government has appointed a senior bureaucrat, William Elliott, as the RCMP commissioner, further eroding the lines between RCMP and government that first occurred during the reign of Norman Inkster in the Mulroney era.

The Harper government has also launched many law-and-order initiatives that have no doubt pleased the RCMP brass.

The RCMP lost some credibility after the world saw how officers used a taser on Robert Dziekanski and the subsequent denials of wrongdoing by Elliott.

The RCMP has also not distinguished itself in other areas, such as the killing of Ian Bush in the RCMP detachment in Houston, B.C., and in its handling of officers' pensions.

The RCMP will be in charge of any criminal investigation into the Cadman affair.

Allegations of this magnitude must also be investigated by the House of Commons ethics committee. It would be easy to subpoena Dona and Jodi Cadman, fly them to Ottawa, and get them to testify under oath.

Then the ethics committee could follow up by issuing subpoenas to top B.C. Conservatives—including Chuck Strahl, Colin Metcalfe, and John Reynolds—as well as to Flanagan, Finley, and Harper.

The ethics committee could obtain records of the people that Cadman met in the days leading up to the vote. Phone records and e-mail records could be collected as well, painting a more complete picture of what occurred leading up to the vote in which Cadman kept the Paul Martin government in power.

If the ethics committee did this in a transparent and nonpartisan fashion, the public could make up its own mind about who's telling the truth rather than relying on the results of a secret RCMP investigation by a force that has always enjoyed a good relationship with the party at the centre of extremely serious criminal allegations.

Login or register to post comments | email | print

Comments Disclaimer

Post New Comment

Comments Disclaimer

This is a very good opinion. Canadian politics really is getting very weird. Perhaps because the top politicians feel that they have a free pass to do anything. Time to straighten that out, eh?
Submitted by Rusted Not Trus... on Sun, 2008-03-02 18:24.

I find it curious that none of the media are raising questions about the RCMP's warm relationship with the Harper government, which seems to be doing everything possible to please the Mounties and municipal police across the country.

Now, the Mounties are in a position to inflict serious damage on the Conservatives if they find evidence of criminal behaviour in the Cadman affair.

Retired Mounties have been elected, have run or have been nominated as Conservative candidates. Let's hope that the ethics committee examines the Cadman affair in public so that the public can see for itself what occurred.

The reference to Norman Inkster in the commentary was included because of what I read in Paul Palango's excellent 1995 book, Above the Law: The Crooks, the Politicians, the Mounties, and Rod Stamler.

I also highly recommend Palango's second, more nuanced book on the RCMP that was released in 2000. It's called The Last Guardians: The Crisis in the RCMP--and in Canada.
Submitted by Charlie Smith on Sun, 2008-03-02 18:59.

Seems the she said, he said scandal surrounding Chuck Cadman has become the red herring of the century. If the thought of some insurance underwriter giving a life insurance policy to a man with terminal cancer sounds ridiculous it probably is. And all the statements attributed in the book, which I have read, are third party hearsay statements that would never stand up in court, or anywhere else for that matter. Even the author in an interview couldn’t even corroborate the allegations other than to say that is what Mrs. Cadman told him and she wasn’t in the room either. No doubt the conservatives would offer to help Cadman with an election since his riding association was broke and unable to finance a campaign. All other political party’s including the Liberals bolster riding associations this way. And according to the author, nobody except his legislative assistant Dan Wallace was in the room with Cadman and the representatives from the conservatives so any information flowing from that is mere speculation, or a fabrication since Wallace refuses to say what was said. According to the author he deferred to Dona as to what was said. If anyone knows a first-hand account, instead of the heresy of others, it would be Dan Wallace and no other since Mr. Cadman is deceased. As to Mrs. Cadman running for the conservatives, good luck with that. Seems this whole scandal is designed to pump up book sales for the author and increase the dividend paid to the Cadman family for their unsubstantiated statements in the book. What I find most amusing is how the media ran with the story before getting all the facts. Now that down-right irresponsible journalism. Shameful.
Submitted by markalanwhittle on Wed, 2008-03-05 14:25.

The public makes up their own mind anyway, often long before any true facts come to light, and the majority rarely believe what these 'special investigations' via the police or the politicians decide because corruption is so rampant. All we have to do is turn back a page to Chretien's era. The opinions held by the public of the police and politicians was soooooo different even 20 years ago. Back then, we told our kids to always go to a policeman if they needed help, whereas now we say stay far away from them, and the same is true of politicians. At one time if you had any problems you could write and actually get a response "and" action, yet now you are lucky if you get a form reply and no response at all. We have exactly what we the people created, and need look no further than ourselves.
Submitted by freefall7 on Wed, 2008-03-05 15:25.

Charlie, I seem to recall something about not being able to subpoened a PM while they are sitting and for some time after they resign, to testify. Chretien avoided just this for a long time, before they were actually able to subpoena him, but eventually he did appear in the courts.
Submitted by freefall7 on Wed, 2008-03-05 15:43.

markalanwhittle, as Charlie reported in a separate article, Wallace has publicly stated "I was outside that room and not privy to the details." As for an "insurance policy" - well it's unlikely this would be through an insurance underwriter, but could well have been a 'private direct payment' only referred to as such.

I did a quick search and found some of the reference I recalled about the subpoena. It's actually under "parliamentary privilege," and one case I read previously was the Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada. I also recall there were some media articles at the time when Chretien finally did get subpoened and had to appear (alas he likely 'did not remember' anything about the issue though even though he was one of the center characters).

As for the RCMP's 'warm relationship' with the government, that is true no matter what party is in power at any given time, but there is a bit of necessity where that is concerned. No different for example than CBC. When the fiasco occurred with APEC, and CBC reporters were invovled, the PM's office (Chretien at that time) nicely phoned CBC and told them to shut Milewski up or else. But then, CBC relies on the feds for the majority of their budget, so what can they really say?
Submitted by freefall7 on Wed, 2008-03-05 17:11.