Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons

BTC: You had an option, sir. You could've said so.

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, June 5, 2008 1:17pm - 0 Comments

As a prologue to Kady’s handy timeline…

On Feb. 29, James Moore walked out of the House and into a scrum. “Before I take any questions, I just did want to make a quick statement here,” he said. “We’re deeply concerned that the author of this book is handing out for $500 a pop a bootlegged conversation, a taped conversation with Mr. Harper. We call on him and ask him to release the full version of his conversation with Mr. Harper unedited and make it available to all Canadians so that all Canadians can get the full scope of the conversation.”

The questions that followed were fairly straightforward.

Can you tell us what Mr. Harper was talking about?

“Well, until we see the full and unedited version of the interview then we’ll be able to comment.”

What was he talking about?

“I haven’t heard the full and unedited version of the conversation. That’s what’s important about this.”

Are you accusing him of releasing an edited version of that conversation?

“Well, we’ve only of course seen a segment of the conversation and we want to see a full unedited version of this conversation. I know that he’s selling them for $500 each to media outlets and we want to see a full and unedited version of this conversation.”

That was a Friday. When the House resumed on Monday, Stephane Dion, after some typically vague accusations, focused in on the tape. “Mr. Speaker, there is a tape of the Prime Minister. On that tape, the author of the book, Mr. Zytaruk, asks the Prime Minister whether he knows anything about the $1 million insurance policy. Anyone who was not aware of what had happened would have asked what Mr. Zytaruk meant and why he was talking about $1 million. But the Prime Minister answered that he was not aware of the details. The Prime Minister therefore knew that an offer had been made.”

The Prime Minister refused to respond directly.

Dion tried again. “There is a tape. The Prime Minister is on tape discussing financial considerations for Mr. Cadman.”

The Prime Minister challenged him to repeat his allegation of bribery outside the House.

On Tuesday, as they too rarely do, the Liberals got specific. “Mr. Speaker, we all heard the tape,” Dion began. “The first question: Could the Prime Minister tell Canadians whether it really is his voice on the tape, yes or no?”

The Prime Minister dodged.

Dion gave it another try. “Can the Prime Minister tell me if it is indeed his voice that we hear on the tape? Yes or no?”

The Prime Minister dodged.

The leader of the opposition gave him one more opportunity. “Do you know, Mr. Speaker, why the Prime Minister does not answer this simple question? It is because he is afraid of the truth and the consequences. However, he has no choice. He must answer. Canadians have the right to know. Once again, is it his voice on the tape, yes or no?”

Here, finally, the Prime Minister relented, offering what is, to my recollection at least, his only direct comment to date on the veracity of the infamous tape.

“Of course, Mr. Speaker, nobody suggested it is not my voice.”

That was March 4. Forty-four days later, the Prime Minister’s lawyers asked forensic expert Alan Gough to investigate.

Tags: Chuck Cadman, James Moore, Stéphane Dion, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Wayne

Hey I just thought of something. Scenario One : The minute Stevie heard the tape in question he knew it had been doctored therefore he starts poking Dion in the eye – say it outside the house etc daring him – Dion and assorted flunkies repeat libellous statements outside of Parliamentary privilege (big mistake) and then even worse the Liberal Party starts promoting tape and libellous statements on their web site and elsewhere – Stevie keeps playing the rope out waiting – An expert confirms tape doctored – Uh! OH! – Stevie starts taking the slack out of the rope but not too fast …. stay tuned …
TobyornotToby

Yes, Wayne, the great mastermind was setting this all in motion, letting us believe he was aware that inducements had been made to a dying MP when he knew otherwise, just so that months later he could spring this trap on the gullible Liberals.

Let’s say we suspend a boxcar load of disbelief to follow your train of thought. Wouldn’t that mean Harper is deceitful, arrogant and wasting the time of both parliament and the court. In contempt of both?

Is it so hard for you to believe he just might be caught on tape admitting the party did something wrong?
jcl

Wayne,

Too funny, maybe he was hoping they’d post something else to their website that could be used in the lawsuit. If it turns out the tape was doctored, someone’s got some ‘splainin’ to do…
http://blog.cruachan.ca Gordo

As I mentioned below, it’s interesting to find inaccuracies in Moore’s statement on the web site. Not once has Harper “maintained” the tape was edited. THis just gets weirder all the time.
jcl

“Is it so hard for you to believe he just might be caught on tape admitting the party did something wrong?”

Actually, it is. This whole “affair” has made no sense from the beginning. Cadman himself denied any offer was made (in an interview). As has been repeated quite often, a $1M insurance policy for a man dying of terminal cancer would cost > $1M dollars. Offering to help Cadman with election costs is not illegal in any way.
Ted

JCL:

Wrong on all three counts.

1. Cadman has never said the Conservatives did not make him an offer. He said he has not received an offer from the other parties.

2. If you already have a term life insurance, you can increase that term life insurance by paying extra premiums – like $5-10 a month more – WITHOUT A PHYSICAL. It is automatic. And it is done, up to the limit and in accordance with the terms set out in the policy, all the time with dying insureds.

3. Offering “financial considerations” (Harper’s words) to join the Conservatives and vote with them on the eve of a vote is illegal. Offering to pay, in advance, the election costs of a dying man who would never be around for the next election is illegal.
http://bcinto.blogspot.com Jeff

Offering to help Cadman with election costs is not illegal in any way.

Nor does it make any sense given that he had months to live and was never going to run in another election.
jcl

Even the Globe and Mail agrees:

“Even though Mr. Cadman, himself, never said boo publicly about a bribe. Moreover, Mr. Cadman confirmed at least three times on television in the weeks after the parliamentary vote that what had transpired was simply that two Conservative Party officials had met with him and offered him logistical and other support should he return to the fold. They offered the usual monetary and other support routinely given to Conservative candidates.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20080606/COCADMAN06/comment/Comment
jcl

Industry experts disagree. Can you say with certainty that there was a term policy in place that had these provisions for expanding coverage?

“Life insurance specialists said they were shocked by the news reports alleging the dying Cadman had been offered a $1 million life insurance policy if he voted to bring down the Grits.”

“I read that and I said who would be dumb enough to even float an idea like that because it just doesn’t make any sense,” said Ken Hunter, an actuary and partner in a Toronto firm that specializes in hard-to-insure cases. “I can say with a high degree of confidence that there is no way that they would have been able to get any such coverage for him.”