dona cadman

The host of a fundraiser for Michael Ignatieff owns a company that exports asbestos from Quebec.

Michael Chong’s motion on Question Period reform is seconded by no less than 20 MPs. Those seconders include 14 Conservatives (Mike Allen, Dona Cadman, Maxime Bernier, Larry Miller, Gord Brown, Nina Grewal, James Rajotte, John Cummins, Peter Braid, Rick Casson, Greg Thompson, Merv Tweed, Brian Storseth and Bruce Stanton), four Liberals (Frank Valeriote, Martha Hall Findlay, Glen Pearson and Siobhan Coady) and two New Democrats (Denise Savoie and Brian Masse).

Three days ago, Blair Robertson posted a video to YouTube with his predictions for the next few months of political events in Canada. Among his prognostications: that a fall election would be disastrous for the Liberals and that the number two would somehow factor into the fortunes of Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper, possibly in the form of floor-crossing MPs.

Steyn’s Ezra quip and a very busy Mr. Oliphant

Bill Casey bid adieu to Parliament yesterday with a classy final speech (the Chuck Cadman story was particularly poignant). Tributes from Peter MacKay, Geoff Regan, Peter Stoffer,Claude DeBellefeuille and the Speaker followed.

Dona Cadman, Feb. 2008. “In an interview with CTV News yesterday, Dona Cadman stood by her story, outlined in the book, that the Tory officials had met with her husband to woo his vote. ‘Two gentlemen had visited him, offered him a million-dollar life insurance policy and a few other things,’ said Cadman, who is the Conservative candidate in the Surrey North riding once held by her husband. Asked whether she considered it a bribe, she responded, ‘Yes, in a way.’”

Before Question Period each day, 15 minutes is set aside for MP’s to stand and deliver short statements on whatever subject they wish to speak to. Usually this involves expressions of concern for international events, commendation for local charities, or reference to legislative matters. It is, at least in theory, the House’s one forum through which individual members can speak of their own volition, irrespective of ongoing debate or strict party interest.

Why, look, the Prime Minister has, in the words of the National Post, “[broken] his silence” on the Cadman Affair – and just hours before the advertising blackout kicks in, which means that the Liberal Party – which, of course, Harper has sued for defamation, won’t be able to respond publicly until after the election:
Harper gave an exclusive interview Monday to Global BC in which he again challenged the casette tape on which journalist Tom Zytaruk asked him about an alleged attempt by Conservative officials to buy a vote from dying Independent MP Chuck Cadman with a $1-million life insurance policy.

The prime minister said even Cadman’s widow, Dona Cadman – who’s running this election as a Tory candidate, denies there was an attempt to bribe her late husband.

“She certainly doesn’t believe that and that’s why she’s running as a candidate in this election,” Harper said in the interview.

“She’s told in court proceedings what she knows. Fact of the matter is, as I’ve said before, this is all based on an allegation on a tape that has been edited and is an incomplete conversation.”

Harper launched a $3.5-million defamation lawsuit against the Liberal Party after the party posted articles on its website accusing Harper of knowing that the bribe would be offered, an allegation he denied.

Earlier this week, an Ontario judge ordered another analysis of the tape and Harper asked former FBI agent Bruce Koenig to do the job. Koenig said the portion of the tape dealing with the insurance policy “contains neither physical nor electronic splices, edits or alterations,” according to a report entered in court on Friday. […]

In the Global BC interview, Harper said some parts were doctored and others were not. However, “a doctored tape is a doctored tape,” he said.

“These various expert reports disagree on some details . . . they all agree that the tape has been significantly doctored and that’s a fact.”
“They all agree”? A statement seemingly at odds with reality – or, at least, the opinion of his own audio expert  – whose report the PM’s lawyers attempted to suppress until after the election – who concluded that the exchange at the heart of the dispute was not, in fact edited:
[F]ormer FBI agent Bruce Koenig, the sound expert Harper hired to prove his allegations, submitted a report dated Friday to Harper’s lawyer, which also had to be sent to the Liberal lawyer Chris Paliare.

In the report, Koenig concluded that the first part of Zytaruk’s interview with Harper, which contains the key portions that the prime minister has contested, was intact.

The second part, beginning roughly one minute and 41 seconds into the tape, was a new recording that was made over the final part of the original recording, he said. But the first crucial minute and 41 seconds had not been altered.

Koenig reported that the tape “contains neither physical nor electronic splices, edits or alterations, except for the over-recording start that erased and replaced the end of the first part of the designated interview.”
The expert hired by the Liberals, however, found differently, according to the Post:
[…]In a strange twist, a CTV News reported Monday that an analysis on the tape by experts tapped by the Liberal Party found the tape had likely been altered, contradicting Koenig’s finding.

Except that’s not quite right, as it turns out. (Really, did anyone think it would be that simple? Has anything about this saga ever been simple?)

At least we now know which member of the PM’s entourage was responsible for siccing the Mounties on the media in Surrey earlier this week:

Don’t worry, I’ll be back on duty later tonight, and you can bet that I’ll have plenty to say about the most recent developments in the Cadman case:

I finally managed to track down Dona Cadman’s second affidavit, which was sworn last Wednesday. I was going to say that there are no real surprises in it, but actually, that in itself was a bit of a surprise. I’ll admit that I was expecting a little more in the way of context – maybe a more detailed description of how — and where — Zytaruk and Harper met, since that appears to be the most significant disagreement between the two versions of events. Then again, it is billed as a supplementary affidavit. The exhibits might be helpful, though. I’m trying to get hold of them, and will post them if I do.

Okay, so I wish I could say that, after typing up the various eyewitness accounts of that fateful September afternoon encounter between Stephen Harper and Tom Zytaruk, I’m a little less confused over what, exactly, happened, but sadly, that’s not the case. Oh well, it was worth a shot — and who knows, maybe someone else will be able to tie this mess of loose ends into a pert little bow.