Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

In someone else's own words

Adam Radwanski, February 28, 2008 at 6:45 PM EST

It would be ironic, given his usual reluctance to talk to reporters, if Stephen Harper were undone by his willingness to talk to Tom Zytaruk in a driveway. But consider the following quote from Zytaruk's book, as reported by The Globe:

“Of the offer to Chuck,” he quotes Mr. Harper as saying, “it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election, OK. That's my understanding of what they were talking about.

“I don't know the details,” he 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 just, they were convinced there was, there was financial issues and, there may or may not.

“They were legitimately representing the party,” Mr. Harper confirmed. “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 say make the case,' but I said ‘Don't press it.'”

Unless I'm missing something, that would seem to contradict the current Conservative version of events in two different ways.

One, the PMO claims that Harper only learned of the alleged bribe offer - of which he purportedly found no evidence - from Dona Cadman. But what he reportedly told Zytaruk directly implies that he knew in advance they were up to something, if not exactly what.

Two, Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley - presumably the officials in question, unless there were two separate offers from two separate pairs of Tory operatives - claim they were there to offer "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." But at the time, Harper reportedly suggested their theory was that Cadman was worried about "financial security" and that they offered to replace "financial considerations he might lose due to an election."

That actually makes a lot more sense, since Cadman wasn't in any shape to run for re-election but might conceivably have worried about giving up his income for as long as he was alive. But it also sounds a lot more like a bribe, doesn't it? 

  1. Catherine L from Canada writes: Yes, sure does. Particularly in the context (of the other allegations written about in the book). Seems either it is libel or it is damning.
  2. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    It's repugnant.

    And not from the CPC's side.
  3. True North from Canada writes: Sure smells like a bribe.
  4. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    A simple question.

    If it were a bribe then why did not Chuck himself bring it up in the House?

    He was dying.
    What would he have had to lose?
    And why wait 3 years to release it, except for the fact that the book is being released?
    It's despicable.

    It's NOT a bribe.
    It's a smear.

    And one of the worst smears we have seen.

    This is going to blow up big time in the LPC's face.
  5. Catherine L from Canada writes: Michael Sharp, what do you mean about the LPC -- do you think Dora Chapman is really a Liberal or do you think the Liberals put her up to this somehow?
  6. D Snider from Napanee, Canada writes: Two points are pertinent: whether Cadman was offered a million dollar insurance policy or a replacement of financial loss resulting from an election, money was offered a parliamentarian for voting a particular way. That is a felony. Second, a person who conspires in the planning of a felony is just as guilty as those who carry out the actual act.

    If, as he reported to have claimed, Zytarek retains the tapes of his interview with Harper, he is obligated to produce them in order that an investigation (hopefully NOT by the RCMP) can be conducted.

    Unlike in the case of charges brought against the Mayor of Ottawa, there appears to be a real smoking gun here. Raising two questions: why wasn't the alleged bribe reported to the police earlier? And, where are the police now that the situation is in the public domain?
  7. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: Harper is far too morally flexible for his own good.

    From Harper's point of view, it makes sense to place Cadman in a situation where he is not bent by money, where Cadman can decide his vote based solely on what is best for Canada. According to that theory, a bribe is an inducement away from right behavior - only.

    The law may not be as morally flexible as our PM. I myself would say that inducement of any sort is a bribe in the criminal sense.

    At the very least, Canadians have every right to question the judgement of every single person at the top of the Conservative Party, involved in this affair. And that includes Mr. Harper.
  8. Brian Lowry from Fredericton, Canada writes: I'm just glad that someone finally came up with a credible explanation for the look on Chuck Cadman's face when he voted. I had always wondered just what brought that on -- perhaps now we know.
  9. Raingod Toronto from Toronto, Canada writes: Interesting that this arises just before the confidence vote on the Budget (is that next Tuesday?).

    I can't believe the Liberals would NOT defeat the government now with this out there tied directly to Harper. I mean he is ghoulish anyway to many Canadians and now proved to be a ghoul in knowing about bribes to a dying man. The master strategist tripped up by his master strategies... and it just feels icky enough to be true to most Canadians.

    The Conservatives will be reeling from this and dredged up previous bribery allegations from Stockwell Day to Alan Rickman to oops Larry the Mayor Guy.

    The Liberals will never have a better chance and a better issue - honesty in government! Believe it or not.....

    Will they do it though?
  10. Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: So when Party's refund expenses for candidates is that a bribe also? I assume this offer was made with the assumption that Cadman would be a Conservative MP and no longer an independent. As usual the media only likes reporting half of the story. What happened to investigative journalism?
  11. Just Visiting from Ottawa, Canada writes: When resolving a disputed claim gets down to carefully parsing sentences in a 2-year old interview with a deceased person, I think reasonable people will assess the credibility and possible motivations of the parties in dispute.

    In this case, we have Harper's claim versus the claims of Cadman's wife and daughter.

    So who seems most credible? Who has reason to lie?

    The question pretty well answers itself.
  12. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Just Visiting from Ottawa asks and I answer:
    In this case, we have Harper's claim versus the claims of Cadman's wife and daughter. So who seems most credible? Who has reason to lie?
    The question pretty well answers itself.'

    ....Think book release.
  13. D G from Canada writes: Can you imagine Michael Sharp's reaction to this had it been an LPC member who allegedly offered the alleged bribe? His little partisan head would be on the verge of exploding.
  14. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: I watched on television yesterday as a Conservative MP all but called Cadman's widow a liar and claimed that Cadman categorically stated there was no attempt to bribe him. Mike Duffy actually read aloud what Cadman actually said which was neither a categorical denial nor a positive assertion. What he said sounded like a carefully constructed statement designed not to be untrue yet not to expose the whole truth.

    I trust Messers Flanagan and Finley to be able to construct a proposal that was within the letter of the law if not the spirit. Just the same way children donated large but legal amounts of money to the same Liberal leadership candidate as their parents did.
  15. Wall Flower from Canada writes: I'm trying to understand the implications here.

    If there was indeed bribery, who will be sent to jail? Are we talking about seeing the Prime Minister of Canada criminally charged?

    This is mind boggling...
  16. reality man from Canada writes: Michael Sharp: The motivation for Cadmans's widow is a book release? Ummm, she is not the author of the book so why would that be an incentive - to sell another person's book? Mrs. Cadman is seeking a Conservative nomination for the next election so she is hardly a representative of the Liberal party and stands to suffer professionally should her allegations tick off the Conservative party - as it surely will with this vindictive and mean-spirited PM. So that's some great Conservative logic- as usual. By the way, Cadman's personal assistant has also confirmed the story and the Conservatives are clearly lying when they claim that Cadman stated that he didn't get an offer from the Conservatives- what he said was that he didn't get an offer FROM THE OTHER PARTIES i.e. Liberals and NDP. This is typical of the deceptive nature of this immoral Conservative government that will lie about anything and smear anyone to cover its own incomptence, to get its own way and to cover its own alleged criminal conduct as it now appears. This is highly remiiniscent of the last Conservative government in which a slew of Mulroney cabinet ministers went to jail or resigned due to their unethical behaviour. Keep in mind that the second in command, Peter Mackay, won the PC leadership by signing a clear agreement with Peter Orchard that he shamelessly reneged on i.e. his word is literally not worth the piece of paper that it is written on. Then we have Stockwell Day smearing a lawyer, and getting successfully sued for it, because he had the audacity to provide an individual with his constitutional right to legal defence. The number of cases in which this government has lied to the public, shamelessly smeared innocent people to cover its own mistakes and got caught pursuing policies that it has previously condemned is astonishing considering that this is a minority government two years of age. Just think what these people would do if they had a majority.
  17. K. B. from Canada writes: Let's all remember that Chuck Cadman was none too happy with the Conservative party at the time. He was quite livid that they actually made him contest a nomination race - one that he lost - in the riding in which he was the sitting MP. That was before the 2004 election, which Cadman won as an independent. So he definitely had an axe to grind with the leadership of the Conservative party. I'm not saying he would necessarily lie or try to defame the party because of it, I'm just saying there was obvious tension between the two. To those thinking that the PM will go to jail, please grab a brain. This allegation cannot be proven in a court of law, as the only person who can give direct evidence about it (as opposed to hearsay evidence, which his wife and daughter are giving) is dead. If nothing came out of the Stronach crossing, or the tapes that detailed how the Liberals' Ujjal Dosanjh and Mike Murphy tried their best 'wink wink; nudge, nudge' routine on Gurmant Grewal, then how does anyone figure this one - with less evidence - will be different? You will have clips from Cadman, and the direct testimony of Flanagan and Finley. If the RCMP open up a formal investigation, I would be shocked. It should take little more than a day for them to realize that no offence provable in any court of law in the land took place. Ya gotta love though, how our parliamentary Ethics Committee chairman, Mr. Szabo, is already terming it the 'Chuck Cadman Bribery Scandal'. Say what?? You'd think such a chairman would know to keep things on a more even keel. I guess 'Innocent until proven guilty' is a foreign concept in the headspace of poor ol' Mr. Szabo. Or maybe it's only valid when it's Liberals being accused. Lastly, an election over this? Don't make me laugh. Garth Turner is a full-blown idiot. He is a hero for idiots everywhere; proof positive that you too can become a millionaire in this great land, despite being an idiot.
  18. Sober Second Thought from Toronto, Canada writes: Whoever is the next leadership hopeful of the conservatives please stand up? Anybody...er......anybody? Just wait for the weather to get a bit warmer and the election will happen. Between the Mulroney scandal and this, the holier than thou party will fall hard.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Adam Radwanski

Back to top