• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Chuck Cadman Merged Thread

JBG said:
And why the need to go to a national unity government, which is typical of wartime or rep-by-prop? It's very suffocating as far as democracy.Why couldn't a Conservative majority accomplish the same? Did the back to back to back LPC majorities of 1993, 1997 and 2000 make those changes?

Traditionally, in Westminster type parliamentary democracies, the majority parties only form coalitions in a crisis or when one or the other agrees to be absorbed. It is common (at least common enough) for one majority party to coalesce with a minority party to secure a stable mandate but a coalition of two majority parties is, I think, out of the question. Thus, for my example, (Liberals in Tory cabinet, Tories in a Liberal cabinet) only a national unity scenario works.
 
Parties do come and go (how many people remember the CCF or the Progressive party?) In the UK the Liberal-Democrats are the hyphenated byproduct of a merger between two parties, and new Classical Liberal parties are forming in Canada like the Wild Rose Alliance and Reform Ontario. And of course the current CPC is the end result of the Reform Party absorbing the federal Progressive Conservative party (with a tiny rump of "Progressive Canadians" still out there).

Based on the current breakdown of the political scene, if there were to be any mergers or alliances at the Federal Level now it will probably be a merger on the left (Liberal-Green?) Maybe we should be thinking about who would work well with Jack Layton?

Unless there is a crisis of major proportions, I see little prospect or need of a national unity cabinet or government forming (and considering we went to war on 9/11 and that didn't trigger any calls for a unity government, the level of crisis will have to be very severe indeed).
 
Thucydides said:
Unless there is a crisis of major proportions, I see little prospect or need of a national unity cabinet or government forming (and considering we went to war on 9/11 and that didn't trigger any calls for a unity government, the level of crisis will have to be very severe indeed).
Of course on 911 the Liberals had a strong majority and there was no need for unpopular wartime measures such as the draft, rationing, or price controls that would make traditional Westminister-type politics (imagine a government falling on the need for wartime rationing, and chaos during the election period).
 
We Canadians, don’t have much experience with unity or national (coalition) governments, at least not at the federal level.

Our American neighbours are much more accustomed to the idea of bipartisan legislative action – sometimes to address major crises, and sometimes to cope with a divided government: one party in the White House another leading one or both legislative chambers.

The British were fairly radical in the 20th century with parties splitting and merging – sometimes (like “Home Rule”) on specific issues, sometimes mirroring the changes ongoing in British society at large. They had nation governments – notably the three national (or coalition) governments of Ramsey MacDonald (’31-’35), Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain (’35-’40) and Winston Churchill (’40-’45). (Note that, Constitution be damned, there was no general election in Britain between Jun 35 and Jul 45.)

The British have also been far more radical than the ‘stick-in-the-mud’ Canadians when it comes to party discipline – extending well into this century.

Woops, thanks Aden_Gatling. I have amended this and the first footnote - I double counted 30 seats.  :-[  Despite the few real differences between the center and left of the Conservative Party and the right and center of the Liberal Party there is scant interest in any sort of national government. Both parties (the party faithful, anyway) are persuaded that majorities are possible, despite the  struggle of earning 155 seats when, at any moment, only about 240 (of 308) are “available.”*

I believe the Conservatives (so long as Stephen Harper is leader) do have a “hidden agenda” that can only be implemented during successive Conservative majority government. I think this agenda revolves fiscally prudent but massively decentralized economic administration, a “hands off’ social agenda (that, de facto spells greater ‘liberty’ for religious groups – so long as they don’t intrude into the ‘space’ of other social groups) and increased emphasis on the national government’s core responsibilities, specified in §VI of the Constitution. I’m guessing that most Liberals, despite their relative proximity on specific policies to the Conservatives, are not supportive of such an agenda. The Liberals, since Laurier, have been believers in a strong central, as were the ”Fathers of Confederation.” Unfortunately (or not) the authors of the Constitution, some faceless Victorian civil servants, created one of the most decentralized federations in the world.**
   
----------
* That assumes that neither of the majority parties get 30 seats in Québec which are the property of the BQ and 10 others that are solid NDP – reducing the “available” seats to 270±. It is also likely that each of the Liberals and Conservatives has an irreducible core of 30 seats thus reducing the available seats to 240±. While 155 is 50%+1 of 308, 125 is nearly 60% of 210 – still a strong showing by Canadian standards.
** I have a respectable reference for that at home – which I’ll be happy to provide if someone reminds me on/about 1 Apr 08

 
E.R. Campbell said:
Despite the few real differences between the center and left of the Conservative Party and the right and center of the Liberal Party there is scant interest in any sort of national government. Both parties (the party faithful, anyway) are persuaded that majorities are possible, despite the Herculean struggle of earning 155 seats when, at any moment, only about 240 (of 308) are “available.”*
----------
* That assumes that neither of the majority parties get 30 seats in Québec which are the property of the BQ and 10 others that are solid NDP – reducing the “available” seats to 270±. It is also likely that each of the Liberals and Conservatives has an irreducible core of 30 seats thus reducing the available seats to 240±. While 155 is 50%+1 of 308, 155 is nearly 65% of 240 – a true landslide by Canadian standards.

Herculean struggle?  Look at it this way: if the "irreducible core" is 30 seats (i.e., guaranteed minimum) either of the major parties would only need an additional 125 of 210 "available" seats: slightly less than 60%.  Ergo, either can enjoy complete tyranny with the support of only 60% of the undecided electorate.
 
Aden_Gatling said:
Herculean struggle?  Look at it this way: if the "irreducible core" is 30 seats (i.e., guaranteed minimum) either of the major parties would only need an additional 125 of 210 "available" seats: slightly less than 60%.  Ergo, either can enjoy complete tyranny with the support of only 60% of the undecided electorate.

Yes, indeed and thanks for that correction. I did double count 30 seats.  :-[

Getting 60% of the seats is still a struggle - that's like the majority party earning 185 seats in the next general election. That's equal to Chretien's victory in 1993 which was, rightfully, called a landslide. Of course it is nothing compared to Mulroney in 84 (74% of the seats) and Diefenbaker in 1958 (78% of the seats).
 
Aden_Gatling said:
Herculean struggle?  Look at it this way: if the "irreducible core" is 30 seats (i.e., guaranteed minimum) either of the major parties would only need an additional 125 of 210 "available" seats: slightly less than 60%.  Ergo, either can enjoy complete tyranny with the support of only 60% of the undecided electorate.
That analysis depends on how the electorate is divided. If the Bloc, NDP and Liberals split the remaining vote equally it is theoretically possible for a CPC candidate to win a Quebec riding with 26% of the vote. I know, of course, that those exact numbers are unlikely, but they of course illustrate an extreme form of the effect of vote-splitting.
 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/05/16/5588931-cp.html

No charges to be laid in Cadman affair

By Jim Bronskill, THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA - The RCMP say no charges will be laid in the Chuck Cadman affair, but the mysterious political story appears to have yet more chapters.

The federal Liberals, who originally complained to the Mounties, said Friday the Conservative government still has a duty to give Canadians details of the episode.
Tory MP James Moore, however, pronounced the case closed, calling the Liberals reckless in their false accusations. "We have said from the beginning that nothing improper happened here."

The Mounties were looking into politically explosive allegations that the Tories offered Cadman a life insurance policy in exchange for his support on a key vote in Parliament in 2005.
Cadman, an Independent MP, was dying of cancer at the time.
His widow Dona and daughter Jodi have both said Cadman described being offered a $1-million life insurance policy. 
 
The Conservatives acknowledge that two of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's close confidants, Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan, met with Cadman, but say they only offered a repayable loan for his local riding association to cover campaign expenses if he rejoined the Tories.
Harper told Dona Cadman he did not know of any insurance offer.
He said in a taped interview with Cadman biographer Tom Zytaruk in September 2005 that there was an offer "only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."
Harper has not publicly explained the financial considerations.

Cadman ultimately sided with the Liberals in a House of Commons confidence vote and kept then-prime minister Paul Martin in office for a few more months.
Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc released a letter Friday from the RCMP saying the police force had wrapped up its probe and, in consultation with the office of the Ontario attorney general, determined the "investigation disclosed no evidence to support a charge under the Criminal Code or under the Parliament of Canada Act."

LeBlanc said in a statement that while he fully accepts the RCMP's finding, he believes Harper and the Conservatives must disclose details of the offer to Cadman.
"Canadians deserve answers to those questions," he said. "We will continue to press for them."
LeBlanc said the ethical standards of a prime minister must be higher than "those of the evidentiary rules for prosecution under the Criminal Code."

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion echoed LeBlanc's call for Harper to elaborate.
"It's his voice that we hear on the tape," Dion said. "He's speaking about financial considerations for Mr. Cadman. He never explained what that meant, and it's time for him to explain it."
Harper has filed a lawsuit against the Liberals, claiming he was libelled in postings on the party's website.

Moore said Friday the party would be held accountable.
"The Liberals have made fabricated accusations. Very soon Liberals will see how big of a legal problem they have created for themselves."
Zytaruk said the RCMP contacted him during its investigation. "Being a journalist, I didn't give them a statement. But I wouldn't have had anything of material to offer them anyway."

Neither Dona nor Jodi Cadman were available for comment. Both have said they were interviewed by the Mounties.

 
Uh oh...........

http://stevejanke.com/archives/265863.php

The tape that wasn't there

The Chuck Cadman story takes another strange turn.  The question of whether the Conservatives offered some sort of bribe to Chuck Cadman in 2005 to rejoin the Conservatives and bring down Paul Martin's government has already been put to rest with the RCMP reporting "no evidence" to support such an allegation.

But there is still the matter of the lawsuit filed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper against the Liberal Party for having published statements on the website to the effect that Stephen Harper knew of a bribe.

Part of the lawsuit hinged on a tape recording, a tape recording that the Conservatives now say has been doctored.

The Conservatives have taken square aim on this tape recording of Stephen Harper discussing the Chuck Cadman story with Tom Zytaruk.  Zytaruk wrote the book that made the allegation of a million dollar life insurance policy being dangled in front of Cadman, who was dying of cancer:

Lawyers for the Conservative Party have filed a motion to prevent the Liberal Party from using a "doctored" 2005 tape recording of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The Tories claim they have proof that a recording of Harper discussing "financial considerations" offered to the late Chuck Cadman was altered.

In a taped interview with Zytaruk, Harper allegedly says "the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.''

I have never said much about the tape, since it seems to say nothing more than what the Conservatives have said all along, and that is the offer was to help finance an election campaign, which as I understand it, is legal.

Note that the tape was not made by the Liberals, but by Zytaruk.  Duplicates were then sold by the publishers.  Nevertheless, the Liberals made great use of this tape.  Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion made the tape his main prop:

However, Mr. Harper is heard on tape, directly following his September 9 , 2005 meeting with Mrs. Cadman, telling reporter Tom Zytaruk that he was aware of the offer, but told his operatives not to “press him”.

Mr. Dion said Prime Minister Harper’s claim that the Conservatives only offered for Mr. Cadman to rejoin their party and that Mr. Harper was unaware of an offer of an insurance policy appears to conflict with his own words in the 2005 taped interview.

“So why, on the tape, does the Prime Minister speak about the financial offer? Why does he speak about ‘financial insecurity’, ‘financial issues’, ‘financial considerations?’” asked Mr. Dion.

It was always about the tape:

Mr. Dion was referring to a taped conversation between journalist Tom Zytaruk and Stephen Harper, where Mr. Harper is clearly heard making comments which may suggest that he was aware of the allegation that Conservative officials tried to offer financial compensation to Mr. Cadman.

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot get out of this so easily. The question was asked on the tape. It dealt with a $1- million insurance policy and it talked about ‘financial considerations’ for Mr. Cadman, ‘financial insecurity,’ ‘financial issues’.

“Once again, the question is as follows: What financial insecurity was the Prime Minister referring to in answer to a question with respect to a $1-million insurance policy?”

The tape was crucial because Donna Cadman, Chuck Cadman's widow, has come out to say that she believes Stephen Harper.  Chuck Cadman himself, before he died, stated publicly that no one tried to bribe him.

The Liberals don't have any independent witness to support the allegation that Stephen Harper knew of a bribery attempt.  The tape, as ambiguous as it was, was their best line of attack.

So Liberals came up with a new manta: Explain the tape!

Well, explaining the tape might turn out to be more complicated than anyone expected:

On Wednesday, Tory MP James Moore said the tape was incomplete. He said the "tape was doctored by inserting a sound clip that was fabricated."

The Tories say two expert audio analysts have confirmed that the audiotape was doctored.

"The Liberal Party has been caught using a doctored tape to make serious criminal accusations against the Prime Minister of Canada on the eve of an expected election campaign," said Moore.

"There is no truth to their reckless accusations. Their day in court will come soon enough. For now, Mr. Dion and the Liberals must offer Canadians a complete and honest explanation."

We don't have details about the alleged manipulation of the tape, or how it substantially changes the nature of the discussion it purports to have recorded.  In a sense, we don't have to.  If the recording was altered, then it is not a credible witness of the discussion, regardless of whether the manipulation was substantial or not.

I made the same point in the John Mark Karr story, where I predicted that the credibility of the evidence in the California charges might not stand up to scrutiny.  I was surprised at just how right I was, when it was discovered that that the original evidence -- disk drivers from Karr's computer -- had been actually been lost, as incredible as that seems.  The prosecution attempted to use copies of the drives as evidence, but that didn't pass the laugh test, not even for a moment, and John Mark Karr went free.  No one accused the prosecution of offering copies that weren't accurate backups of the lost evidence, but then they didn't need to.  Those drives weren't Karr's, and so were not relevant to the case.

The same principle applies here, I think.  Any manipulation of evidence means that it is simply inadmissible. If the order of the conversation has been changed, then the tape is out.  If parts of the recording have been removed, even if it was just the sound of someone coughing, then the tape is out.  If the tape recording we've heard has had nothing more than pauses added to extend gaps in the conversation, then the tape is out.

Would the tape be a fake?  Well, it plays the sounds of a conversation that never actually happened. 

In a sense, the tape wasn't there when the conversation took place.

Pieces of it are from a real conversation, but the conversation as a whole did not happen as is heard on the tape.  The whole point of using electronic media like this as evidence is that, undoctored, it is an exact and incontrovertible record of the real events.  But it is also known that these records are easily manipulated, especially in the digital realm (analog recordings can, of course, be digitized, manipulated, and the re-recorded on analog media).  The ease with which these records can be altered is why, as in the John Mark Karr case, anything but the true original data is simply unacceptable.

Indeed, I don't know that anyone has the original tape.  Even if someone offered up a tape as the original media used to record the conversation, how would you prove that?  Show how it is different from the copy that everyone else has been peddling?  Wouldn't that just confirm that the tape everyone has been listening to is a fake?  But then maybe this new tape was doctored differently?  Do we the pay for yet another analysis, now of this "original" tape?  Or do we simply concede the obvious?  The people who offered up the doctored tape, either to promote the book or to pursue a political agenda, have had their credibility seriously damaged, and that undermines any argument made by anyone using this tape or any tape from this source.

If the allegations of manipulation hold up, and if the Liberals are forced to withdraw the tape, then their defense in a libel suit is dramatically weakened.  That could force the Liberals into a position in which they pursue a settlement, especially with party finances so weak.  With the events of the past few weeks, I can't see the Conservatives being too generous.

Update: With regards to the original tape, the Toronto Star provides a bit more detail.  Apparently the tape that was analyzed came from Tom Zytaruk himself:

[James Moore] said Harper's lawyers obtained a copy of the tape for their analysis from Zytaruk, but he refused to speculate who "doctored" the tape.

If the allegation of manipulation of the tape holds up, I wonder if Tom Zytaruk will be providing another tape for analysis, or if he might explain who else had the tape in their possession.

Update: Continuing with the same Toronto Star report, we have some idea of the nature of the alleged manipulation:

Audio experts Alan Gough of Stratford, Ont., and Tom Owen of Colonia, N.J., separately examined copies of the tape and reached similar conclusions that the tape had been edited.

“The tape has been edited and doctored and does not represent the entire conversation that took place,” Owen said in a sworn statement.

“This is not a continuous recording of one conversation,” Gough said in his affidavit.

“The interruptions of words, changes of background ambience and changes of frequency response indicate that this may be three separate recordings.”

That seems very odd.  The question of this tape being an excerpt of a longer conversation has been kicked around for quite some time, and Ezra Levant was just one of many who demanded that the entire interview be released.  But what Gough states implies much more than an excerpting of an interview, but of a splicing of discrete segments.  Frequency response, simply put, is a measure of how a microphone responds to sounds at different frequencies.  The "response" of a microphone is how efficiently it converts sound energy into electrical energy.  If a microphone was allowed to sit in a more or less fixed location during a conversation, you'd expect the response to a particular set of frequencies (like the different frequencies that make up the "a" sounds in "Cadman" as said by Stephen Harper) would be the same.  But changes in the frequency response indicate either a change in location or a change in equipment (the first could alter the frequencies picked up by the microphone for what seems to be the same sound because of differences in acoustic reflections from a new configuration of furniture and walls and such, as well as different relative locations of the microphone and the people speaking, and the second because, of course, different microphones will exhibit different responses to different frequencies because of differing designs).  The change in background ambience suggests the place of the conversation moved.  Three different conversations perhaps?

I'm not sure you can explain away differences in frequency response by simply saying you turned the tape recorder off and on during an interview.  Unless you moved to a new location in the interim, the frequency response won't change when you turn the tape recorder back on.  We can infer from Gough's statement that he detected three markedly different sets of frequency responses in a short two-minute conversation.

The tape that wasn't there, or the conversation that never happened?

Addendum:  When did the Cadman story become linked to income trusts?
 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080710/cadman_tape_080710/20080710?hub=Politics
 
Harper lawyers want Cadman author to testify
Updated Thu. Jul. 10 2008 5:51 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper's legal team plans to ask a judge to summon B.C. author Tom Zytaruk to Ottawa to testify in Harper's defamation suit against the Liberal party over bribery allegations in the Chuck Cadman affair.
The Vancouver lawyer for Zytaruk and a Toronto lawyer representing the Liberal party confirmed Thursday that Harper's lawyer has signalled he wants Zytaruk to appear personally to attest to the authenticity of a recorded interview of Harper that is at the centre of the lawsuit.

If the motion compelling Zytaruk to appear succeeds, he would testify in September, when the first hearing in the $3.5-million lawsuit has been scheduled.
In the audio recording of Zytaruk's 2005 interview with Harper, then opposition leader, Harper is heard saying he was aware Conservative party organizers spoke to the late MP Cadman about "financial considerations" before a Commons vote earlier that year that could have led to a snap election.

Cadman, a former Conservative who was an Independent MP at the time and had terminal cancer, supported the Liberal government in the confidence vote to prevent the election.
Harper tells Zytaruk in the recording it was his understanding the organizers, Harper's top political operative Doug Finley and campaign director Tom Flanagan, approached Cadman with an offer only to replace financial considerations he might lose "due to an election."

Zytaruk wrote in a biography of Cadman, who subsequently died, that his widow Dona said the Conservatives had offered Cadman a $1-million insurance policy if he helped to defeat the Liberals and force an election the Conservatives were expecting to win because of controversy over the Liberal sponsorship scandal.
Harper launched his lawsuit following turmoil over the allegations last year, and last month added a further $1 million in damages for "misappropriation of personality" on grounds Zytaruk's tape had been doctored to distort what Harper said to the author.
It is the integrity and authenticity of that tape that could be at the centre of arguments when the first hearings in the lawsuit take place Sept. 22-23, said Chris Paliare, the Liberal party's lawyer.

"That's my understanding," Paliare said, adding he understands Harper's lawyer, Richard Dearden, plans to file motions within a week asking an Ontario Superior Court judge to order a summons compelling Zytaruk to appear.
Personal testimony in a libel suit would be unusual, even more so if the witness is from another province, Paliare and Zytaruk's counsel, Vancouver lawyer Barry Gibson, both told The Canadian Press.

Gibson confirmed Zytaruk is aware of the possibility, and also confirmed Zytaruk has refused to furnish Dearden with an original copy of the recording for verification by audio and computer experts.
"For obvious reasons, Mr. Zytaruk doesn't want to give up the originals, especially to Dearden," Gibson said in an interview.
Though it has been unable to obtain an original copy of the tape, the Conservative party has nonetheless had experts examine a copy Zytaruk provided and says the experts determined the original recording had been altered.

Dearden is also expected to file an earlier motion in a British Columbia court to seek a hearing in B.C., where Zytaruk would also appear with his original recording of Harper to initially verify the recording is authentic and prepare the ground for the Ottawa hearing.
The hearing has been scheduled to hear Harper's application for a court injunction preventing the Liberal party from using the recording, which the Liberals say in their statement of defence was widely available on the Internet when they downloaded it.

Dearden said he could not comment on the case, and had been instructed to refer journalists to the prime minister's communications office.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, in the obituary of Jean Pelletier:
Part 1 of 2
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090110.wpelltier0110/BNStory/National/home

Jean Pelletier, 73

SANDRA MARTIN

Globe and Mail Update
January 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM EST

QUEBEC — Loyalty ran like blood between Jean Chrétien and Jean Pelletier from the days when they slept side by side in the dormitory of a Catholic boarding school in Trois-Rivières, Que. For decades their careers took different routes, years in which Mr. Pelletier was Mayor of Quebec City and active in national and international mayoralty associations; but, in 1991, when Mr. Chrétien was floundering as the newly-elected Leader of the Opposition, he turned to his old friend and recruited him as his chief of staff.

Eloquently bilingual, tall, slim with silver hair and a courtly Charles Boyer formality, Mr. Pelletier had a reputation as “terrifying” and the “velvet executioner” because of his tough, but discreet administrative style. He ran Mr. Chrétien's office from 1991 to 2001, through the recession of the early 1990s, the perilously close Quebec referendum in 1995 and three majority governments. Two qualities distinguish his tenure as chief of staff to the prime minister: longevity and lack of controversy and scandal. But he also inspired enormous affection, respect and loyalty from MPs and the hard-nosed team of advisers he worked with in the PMO.

“His role was critical to the success of the Chrétien administration. ...When he left his post, he had established a reputation as having been one of the best chiefs of staff any Canadian prime minister ever had,” Eddie Goldenberg, Mr. Chrétien's long time senior policy adviser, wrote in The Way it Works: Inside Ottawa. “He let you do your work, he gave you your head, but he made sure the trains ran on time. Everybody who worked in the PMO has only the highest regard and respect for him and consider him to be the pater familias of the family,” he said later in an interview.

“He was not a simple person; he was by no means a pushover,” said Chaviva Hosek, Mr. Chrétien's director of policy and research and now CEO of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. “It is the essence of the job [as chief of Staff] that sometimes you have to say no to people. It goes with the territory,” she said.

He ran a very effective shop, very orderly, very well structured, but he also presided over an office which was a very collegial place, said Peter Donolo former director of communications for Mr. Chrétien and now a partner in The Strategic Counsel. “A lot of political staffers, their only authority is the reflected authority they have from their bosses, but he actually brought something to Mr. Chrétien. When he spoke on the PM's behalf to Ministers and others, he had a real authority.”

And then, after Paul Martin succeeded Mr. Chrétien as Liberal prime minister in 2003, everything went sour for Mr. Pelletier. He was fired as chair of Via Rail for seemingly intemperate remarks he made about Olympic gold medalist Myriam Bédard and then he was implicated by Mr. Justice John Gomery in his inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

In Hell or High Water: My Life In and Out of Politics, Mr. Martin argued that Mr. Pelletier “should not have commented on the personal life of an employee” and furthermore his remarks were “entirely inappropriate and a direct challenge to my whistleblower policy.” He justified his action by saying, “To leave Pelletier in place in the circumstances would have undermined our commitment to public servants that they should come forward without fear if they had allegations or concerns.”

“He was very hurt about being fired for saying something about Myriam Bédard without being asked for his side,” said Mr. Goldenberg. “The whole purpose [of firing him] had nothing to do with Ms. Bédard and everything to do with the fact that Mr. Martin didn't like him because he had worked for Mr. Chrétien.”

As for the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Pelletier, “a man whose integrity had never been questioned,” found the Gomery Commission “very difficult in a personal sense because he knew he had done nothing wrong,” according to Mr. Goldenberg. “I don't think, Mr. Gomery understood, or wanted to understand how the system actually works in Ottawa. Mr. Pelletier met with Mr. Guité [the federal civil servant in Public Works in charge of the sponsorship program], but he didn't say to him why don't you pay people for work they didn't do. The PMO doesn't work that way.”

Mr. Pelletier was devastated. “The minute you are suspected of being a possible thief, people cross the street to avoid you. I saw people avoid me. Still today there are people convinced that I filled my pockets and I have bank accounts all over the world. I can tell you I didn't take a bloody cent,” he told a reporter for the CPAC network just before the Quebec election on March 26, 2007.

He fought back, winning damages that November from the government for the “cavalier and precipitous” way in which he had been fired from the VIA board. Seven months later, in June, 2008, Judge Max Teitlebaum of the Federal Court ruled that Mr. Gomery had shown “bias” against both Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Chrétien and declared “void” all sections of his report dealing with the former prime minister and his chief of staff. He also ordered the government to pay their legal costs. Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper's government is appealing that decision.

After an exemplary public service career and recognition as an officer in both the Order of Canada and France's Legion of Honour, vindication was cool solace for a man as proud as Mr. Pelletier. As a Liberal insider said: “From Mr. Chrétien on down, the anger and bitterness that we feel toward Mr. Martin has more to do with his treatment of Mr. Pelletier than anything else, anything else. A lot of other stuff we could forgive as part of the course of politics, Mr. Martin's ambition, the bitterness of his feelings toward Mr. Chrétien and the deterioration of their relationship, but on the whole issue of his treatment of Mr. Pelletier, has left a bitter taste. This was revenge, kicking him on the way out the door.”

Mr. Pelletier was born in Chicoutimi, Quebec on Feb 21, 1935, the son of Burroughs and Marie (Desautels) Pelletier. He was educated at the College des Jesuits in Quebec City and the Séminaire de Trois-Rivières. He met Jean Chrétien, who is a year older, when he was about 15 and they were both boarding at the Catholic school in Trois-Rivières. They slept in adjacent and extra long beds in the dormitory because they were both tall for their ages.

“We both came from different colleges, I guess we had been a bit too lively, and I had quit Joliette to go to Trois Rivières and he had quit Quebec... and we spent a year together and we became very good friends,” Mr. Chrétien said in an interview. The two young men met up again at Laval University in the mid 1950s. Mr. Pelletier took social sciences and began working as a journalist with CFCM-TV in Quebec City in 1957. He later served as a press secretary for Paul Sauvé when he was Premier of Quebec. On June 3, 1961, he married Hélène Bherer. The couple eventually had two children.

Mr. Pelletier became involved in municipal politics as one of the founders of Quebec's Parti du Progrès civique in 1962. In 1964, he became a securities dealer with Lévesque and Beaubien Ltd and six years later was vice-president of Dumont Express. From 1973 until 1977, he was director and vice-president of Action Sociale Ltée. He was elected as a municipal councillor in Quebec City in December 1976 and mayor the following year, a position he held for a dozen years and two more elections. During his tenure as mayor, from 1977-1989, he improved rail service into the city, was instrumental in reviving the Lower Town and in having it designated a UNESCO World Heritage site.

In June, 1990, Mr. Chrétien finally became leader of the Liberal Party after defeating Paul Martin at the convention following the resignation of John Turner. The victory tasted more like ashes than honey. Castigated in the Quebec media for his opposition to Meech Lake, buffeted by the defection from the Caucus of francophone MPs (and Paul Martin loyalists) Jean Lapierre and Gilles Rocheleau, he seemed indecisive in the stand-off between the Mohawk Nation's barricade, the Sûreté du Québec and the town of Oka. Politically, he was sidelined because he didn't have a seat in the House of Commons – it wasn't until December, 1990 that he ran successfully in a by-election in the New Brunswick constituency of Beauséjour and was able to take his place in the Commons as Leader of the Official Opposition.

Hampered by the federal party's disorganization, near bankruptcy and drop in the polls from 50 to 32 per cent, and his own awkwardness in using a teleprompter rather than his extemporaneous “le petit gars de Shawinigan” speaking style, Mr. Chrétien was doubting himself as leader. Besides everything else, he was lacking energy. A check-up found two nodules on his lung. After surgery, they were found to be benign, and Mr. Chrétien, the eternal joker, delighted in referring to the snipped nodules as Lapierre and Rocheleau–in reference to the francophone MPs who had quit the caucus when he became leader.

While recuperating in Florida that February, he discussed his leadership problems with his wife Aline, who advised him to stop seeking so much advice and to be himself. That's when he decided to recruit Mr. Pelletier as his chief of staff. “I boxed him into accepting,” he admits in Straight From the Heart. “Some years ago,” I said, “you told me that if I ever needed you, you'd be with me. Well, now I need your help. But I know that you will be like everyone else. I know I'm still not very popular. I know it wouldn't be fashionable for you to work with me. So I expect that you will say not.”

But, of course, Mr. Pelletier said yes. “... he is a man of his word, with a strong sense of public duty. He came, and he soon brought order to my office,” wrote Mr. Chrétien, in what one insider called an “act of loyalty given the way Mr. Chrétien was portrayed at the time in Quebec.” Besides Mr. Pelletier as chief of staff, Eddie Goldenberg continued as senior political adviser (although at the time he was said to have been angry and upset that the appointment had taken him by surprise). Chavia Hosek, a former Ontario cabinet minister, was already in place as director of the Liberal Research Bureau and senior policy adviser, as was Peter Donolo as director of communications.

< End of Part 1>


 
Jean Pelletier: Part 2 of 2

Mr. Pelletier arrived the day after Canada Day, 1991. “I decided to meet every employee in camera,” he told Edward Greenspon and Anthony Wilson-Smith for their book Double Vision: The Inside Story of the Liberals in Power. “After two weeks I knew what was wrong.” Essentially he imposed order on chaos, beginning with a meeting with senior staff at 8:45 every morning in his office on the second floor of the Langevin Block and a meeting 45 minutes later with the prime minister and the clerk of the Privy Council, although he often talked with Mr. Chrétien more than that. He made organizational flow charts, insisted that matters for the PM were filed in red folders and issues related to Quebec in blue ones. He believed that Mr. Chrétien needed “order, control and stability around him” if he were to deliver a peak performance.

“He had a lot of personal authority,” said Mr. Chrétien. “He never raised his voice, but he inspired a lot of respect. There was no shouting around Mr. Pelletier. It was always extremely civilized, always very candid and straightforward and he never looked for publicity for himself.”

For more than two years in Opposition – years of incessant Constitutional wrangling including the negotiation and defeat of both the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords – Mr. Pelletier was the behind the scenes fixer. For example, when Pierre Trudeau, Mr. Chrétien's political hero and mentor, was preparing his denunciation of Charlottetown at the Maison Egg Roll in Montreal on Oct. 1, 1992, it was Mr. Pelletier who urged Mr. Chrétien to meet secretly with his predecessor at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto where the two men argued about the meaning of “distinct society” for more than two hours. They didn't resolve their differences, but Mr. Trudeau did promise to “refrain from undermining my authority in public,” according to Mr. Chrétien's memoirs.

In the 1993 federal election Mr. Pelletier ran for the Liberal Party in Quebec City, his mayoral stronghold, “out of loyalty,” Mr. Chrétien said. “He knew it was going to be very difficult, but we had to build back the party.” The campaign didn't go well and Mr. Pelletier predicted – correctly – that he would lose to the Bloc Québècois candidate. Although Mr. Chrétien initially dismissed his friend's pessimism, he finally arranged, if the worst came to the worst, to meet him at the airport in Trois-Rivières the morning after the election.

“He would have been a very senior cabinet minister,” Mr. Chrétien said. “He was a man of great experience and a well travelled, well-read person.” The day after the election, Mr. Chrétien, who won a massive majority –177 seats –but failed to deliver his native province, sought out Mr. Pelletier on the tarmac and asked him to return as chief of staff. “Your loss is my gain,” he told his old friend.

For the next eight years, Mr. Pelletier ran the PMO, through the enactment and implementation of NAFTA, the recession of the early 1990s, the second Quebec referendum, the Clarity Act, two more landslide Liberal election victories and the growing rivalry between Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin, his minister of finance and impatient heir apparent.

“Beneath his patrician manner and warm smile, Pelletier was extremely disciplined, well organized, and as hard as nails,” Mr. Chrétien wrote in My Years as Prime Minister. “He ran a very tight–and tight-lipped–ship.... As a result, we didn't suffer from the public feuding, backbiting gossip, and anonymous leaks that had plagued other PMOs. Even those columnists and academics who were no fans of the Liberal Party had to concede that Pelletier's operation was among the most efficient and harmonious in memory, despite having been reduced from 120 to 80 employees as a cost-saving measure.”

Jeffrey Simpson, national columnist for The Globe, agreed with that description: “Pelletier stayed away from the media. He seldom met with journalists, and when he did, he gave almost nothing away. He was courteous, refined, sometimes witty and usually non-informative.” Or as Peter Donolo pointed out, Mr. Pelletier had already had his fill of the public stuff, as the high-powered mayor of Quebec, so he didn't need the ego boost. Instead of letting political staffers “swan” about in the media he liked to say: “we don't cook in the living room.”

Besides his administrative skills, his stature in Quebec, his Canadian network from his years both as a member and president of the federation of Canadian Municipalities, he also had sterling international connections. As mayor of Quebec City he had met and become friends with Jacques Chirac when he was Mayor of Paris (1977{minus}1995), a link that was strengthened by working together during the decade that Mr. Pelletier also served as vice-president of the Association of Francophone Mayors (1979-89). For example, it was Mr. Pelletier who persuaded Mr. Chirac to keep mum publicly during the 1980 Quebec referendum. even though, like General de Gaulle before him, Mr. Chirac had a distinct empathy for an independent Quebec.

Mr. Chrétien charged Mr. Pelletier with converting Mr. Chirac from a Séparatiste into a federalist – and persuading him to say so publicly. Mr. Pelletier made secret visits to France twice a year to meet with Mr. Chirac, or “to water my plants” as he liked to describe these trips and he convinced a reluctant Mr. Chrétien to meet Mr. Chirac at the Paris city hall in June 1994, despite the prime minister's disdain for consorting with a man he considered a “right-wing Gaullist,” and about whom he had said publicly, “There's no more chance of him winning the presidential election than of the separatists winning the referendum.” He was certainly wrong on the first prediction–Mr. Chirac was elected president of France, succeeding Francois Mitterand in May, 1995 – and perilously close to losing the second one.

Mr. Pelletier's quiet diplomacy crashed into a shoal, a week before the Referendum in October, 1995 when Mr. Chirac said on the Larry King show on CNN that if the Quebec referendum supported separation, France should be one of the first countries to recognize the new state. Mr. Chrétien was furious and had it out with Mr. Chirac at the Francophonie summit in Benin a few weeks later, much to the discomfort of his chief of staff. (By then the referendum, which took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, had decided against separation by a razor-thin margin: 50.58 per cent “No” to 49.42 per cent “Yes”.)

The blow-up between Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Chirac was actually the beginning of a deep friendship between the two leaders. Mr. Chirac held a state dinner in Paris in Mr. Chrétien's honour as the prime minister was stepping down from public office in 2003, a dinner at which Mr. Chirac referred to him as “mon cher Jean” and stated that relations between the two countries (both of whom had opposed sending troops to Iraq as part of the U.S. led coalition of the willing that spring) had never been better. It was a public compliment to Mr. Pelletier's discreet diplomatic skills as well. In Hell or High Water, Mr. Martin reports that at his first meeting as Prime Minister with Mr. Chirac, the French President rebuked him for his treatment of Mr. Pelletier. “I told Chirac that I appreciated their relationship but that I was prime minister of Canada and would make my own decisions.”

Mr. Pelletier was a peace maker at home as well as abroad. For example, he and Mr. Goldenberg met weekly with senior members of Daniel Johnson's staff in a vain attempt to help the Quebec Premier win the 1994 provincial election. When Mr. Chrétien was thinking of appointing Romeo Leblanc, a former Cabinet Minister and Speaker of the House, Governor-General in the mid-1990s, he asked Mr. Pelletier to deliver the message that Mr. Leblanc should marry his long time companion, Diana Fowler, if he wished to be considered. He did and he was, in Jan. 1995, becoming the first Governor General of Acadian descent. When Adrienne Clarkson's name was being bruited about as Mr. Leblanc's successor in 1999, she “casually let [Mr.]Pelletier know that she had recently married [her partner] John Ralston Saul,” according to Mr. Chrétien in My Years as Prime Minister.

About the time Mr. Pelletier turned 65 in February, 2000, he told his boss that he wanted to retire. Mr. Chrétien persuaded him to stay on for a few more months to see him through the Summit of the Americas, scheduled for Quebec City in April 2001. Mr. Pelletier complied. A grateful Mr. Chrétien paid tribute to Mr. Pelletier, as the man “who has never let me down,” when his chief of staff finally departed the PMO on May 4, 2001. “I believe his performance has set the standard against which senior aides in politics and government will be measured for years to come.” It is certainly true that ten years in the post is a long time compared to the survival rate of subsequent chiefs of staff.

As a parting gift, Mr. Chrétien made Mr. Pelletier chair of VIA Rail in September 2001. It was not an unlikely patronage appointment. As mayor of Quebec City, Mr. Pelletier had improved passenger rail service into the city and he had served on a Quebec-Ontario committee investigating a high speed rail link between Windsor and Quebec City in 1990 – a project he revived and tried hard to push forward after he was appointed as chair of the Via board. But, early in 2004, Mr. Martin, who had succeeded Mr. Chrétien as leader of the party and as prime minister four months earlier, fired Mr. Pelletier in what Mr. Chrétien would later call “an act of petty political revenge.” There were two precipitating incidents, but both involved the sponsorship scandal.

Nobody completely understands the connection between stress and illness, but many believe that the combined effect of VIA and the Gomery Inquiry precipitated Mr. Pelletier's wife's severe complications from diabetes and his own diagnosis of colon cancer. Late last spring he stopped chemotherapy because it was making him ill while doing little to stop the progress of the disease.

Fearing the end was near, Mr. Chrétien and about 15 of his former staffers, including Mr. Goldberg, Ms. Hosek and Mr. Donolo moved a planned reunion dinner (to commemorate the 15th anniversary of Mr. Chrétien's election as prime minister in 1993) from Ottawa to the Quebec Garrison Club on Nov. 15, 2008 so it would be easier for a frail-looking Mr. Pelletier to attend. Instead of a celebration, the evening had an elegiac mood.

On New Year's Eve, 2008, he was admitted to Saint-Sacrement Hospital in Quebec City and later transferred to the Maison Michel-Sarrazin hospice, where he spoke on the phone and was visited by a number of old friends including Quebec City Mayor Regis Labeaume and Mr. Chrétien. “He is a very brave man, very courageous and he is facing death with the serenity of a man who has done his job while he was a citizen,” said Mr. Chrétien. “And I said that to him: ‘You can be proud of yourself.'”

Jean Pelletier, O.C. was born in Chicoutimi, Quebec on Feb 21, 1935. He died of complications from colon cancer in hospital in Quebec City early in the morning on Saturday, Jan. 10, 2009. He was 73. Mr. Pelletier is survived by his wife Hélène, his two children Jean and Marie and his extended family.

--------------------

RIP, Monsieur.


 
Harper drops Cadman defamation suit against Liberals
Updated Fri. Feb. 6 2009 10:10 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has abruptly dropped his $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party over the Cadman affair.
A 51-word news release said Harper and the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada have settled all issues related to the lawsuit.
The suit has been dismissed without costs awarded to either side.
"The parties are pleased to put the matter behind them and will make no further comment," the terse statement said.
Sources have told CTV News that Harper "was going to lose" and thus, dropped the suit.
Harper launched the lawsuit last March after the Liberal party alleged that Harper and the Conservatives tried to bribe Chuck Cadman, the late independent MP, into helping them defeat the minority Liberal government in 2005 by offering the cancer-stricken MP a $1-million life insurance plan.
The allegations came from a biography on Cadman, written by Tom Zytaruk, which said two Tory officials made the offer.
Zytaruk produced an audio tape of an interview with Harper, in which the prime minister said he was aware there was an offer "replace financial considerations that (Cadman) might lose due to an election."
The prime minister said the tape was doctored and sought an injunction to prevent the Liberals from using the tape. The injunction has been dropped along with the lawsuit.
With files from The Canadian Press

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090206/cadman_suit_090206/20090206?hub=TopStories

 
Heard the tape last night... sure does sound like the real deal - that he DID know.
 
Iggy is busy clearing the decks for the future....

no matter which way this suit was going to go, the Libs couldn't afford it......there's a tit for tat somewhere in the woodpile....
 
GAP said:
Iggy is busy clearing the decks for the future....

no matter which way this suit was going to go, the Libs couldn't afford it......there's a tit for tat somewhere in the woodpile....

One might argue that the original accusation was in retaliation for the Sponsorship scandal. The Libs were eager to find something to embarrass the Torries with. They didn't count on the level of response (ie: brought a knife to a gun fight).
 
From my perspective....
The Conservatives did something wrong
when the subject came up, at just about new election time, the Libs tried to bring it out
the Conservatives filed the law suit, which pert much put a gag order on the darned thing - pending a trial date
NOW, it's old news, lots of water under the bridge, the Conservatives aren't as bothered about it as they were - trying to get into power.... so they drop the suit....
Even if the Libs bring up the subject once again, it's old news.... once upon a time, a long long time ago....
 
Some more details.

Harper dropped lawsuit ahead of key hearing
Updated Tue. Feb. 10 2009 7:19 AM ET
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper dropped his lawsuit against the Liberals in the Cadman affair just weeks before a hearing on whether his emails, notes and agenda could be called into evidence.
A court date was to be scheduled this month over the failure of the prime minister's legal team to provide documents and answers to questions that had been requested during a series of cross-examinations last summer.
The lawyer for the Liberal party was set to ask the court to rule whether Harper would have to provide emails and notes for meetings his staff held related to Chuck Cadman.
The matter involves allegations that the Conservatives offered a financial inducement to Cadman, an Independent MP, while trying to defeat the minority Liberal government in 2005. The Tories deny the charge.
The prime minister dropped his $3.5-million defamation lawsuit on Friday after reaching a deal with the Liberals.
Sources say the Liberal party is not obligated to pay any damages or apologize for claims on its website that Harper was aware Tory officials offered Cadman - who was dying - a $1-million insurance policy if he sided with them in a Commons budget vote.
Despite the refusal of either side to comment about their agreement to dismiss the case, records show a legal fight was brewing over the documents and other information Liberal lawyer Chris Paliare had requested.
Hearings were expected to begin this month over Harper's failure to have his lawyers respond to Paliare's request for documents and information from the prime minister's office.
In a series of cross-examinations last summer, Paliare requested copies of Harper's agenda for the day he was interviewed by B.C. journalist Tom Zytaruk, who reported the life-insurance allegations in a biography of Cadman.
Paliare had also asked for copies of Cadman's journals and diaries for the period of time during which the financial inducement allegedly took place.
Harper lawyer Richard Dearden abruptly quit last November, to be replaced by Toronto lawyer David Wingfield, after the initial stages of the Liberal efforts to obtain the documents and information began.
Dearden gave no explanation for his departure, and court notices of the lawyer swap do not indicate whether it was at Harper's wish or Dearden's.
During the examination of Harper last August, Dearden objected to Paliare's request for an email said to discuss a meeting between Cadman and two Conservatives the day of the confidence vote in 2005.
Other documents Paliare requested during his cross-examination of Harper included the notes of "all the people" who attended meetings in the prime minister's office in late February when the allegations were first reported.
Harper's lawsuit prevented the Liberals from exploiting the allegations during the federal election last fall.
Tom Conway, a prominent Ottawa lawyer who represented a former Tory member who sued Harper, said the looming court fight over access to emails and notes may have been behind Harper's decision to abandon the lawsuit.
"People drop lawsuits for all sorts of reason and sometimes they drop lawsuits because they are being asked to produce information they don't want to produce," said Conway, a member of the board of the Law Society of Upper Canada.
The NDP is calling on both parties to disclose the terms of their deal.
"Now it just sort of disappears from the radar because of this closed-door agreement?" said Vancouver MP Bill Siksay. "I don't think that's acceptable."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090210/harper_suit_090210/20090210?hub=QPeriod



 
Several possible options. Take your pick:

http://www.mikebrockonline.com/blog/2009/02/that-defamation-suit.html

That Defamation Suit
By
Mike Brock

on February 12, 2009 3:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)
Question! Did Stephen Harper and the Liberal Party walk away from the lawsuit, with two sets of tight-lips, no costs awarded to the defence, and two happy parties willing "put it all behind them", because:

1. They got bored of the lawsuit.

2. Stephen Harper woke up and decided to show the Liberal Party pity.

3. Both Stephen Harper and the Liberal Party were running out of money, and called truce.

4. A piece of evidence surfaced that implicated members of both parties and would have been politically devastating for both the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada if the information got out.

5. Stephen Harper realized he was going to lose the lawsuit, but had other dirt that the LPC didn't want getting out.  So they bartered.

Hmmmm...
 
Cadman biographer threatens to sue Conservatives
Updated Fri. Feb. 13 2009 4:08 PM ET
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Chuck Cadman's biographer says he might sue the Conservative government for smearing his reputation.
But facing a Tory party with deep pockets, Tom Zytaruk says he would first need a lawyer willing to work for free before seeking reputational damages.
He says he's fed up with watching the Conservatives spread lies about him - and taking for granted that he can't afford a legal fight.
At issue is an interview Zytaruk taped with Stephen Harper several months before Harper became prime minister.
On that tape Harper was overheard discussing a financial offer made to Cadman, the late B.C. MP, in exchange for his support in a crucial parliamentary vote.
The Conservatives have repeatedly claimed that the tape was doctored, even after one of their own experts concluded that the relevant portions were not.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090213/cadman_suit_090213/20090213?hub=TopStories
 
Back
Top