The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Canadians clearly ought to know whether high-ranking Conservative party operatives tried to bribe independent MP Chuck Cadman in an effort to secure his vote to bring down former prime minister Paul MartinÕs Liberal government and force an election in May 2005. CadmanÕs wife, daughter and son-in-law all say he told them before he died that he was offered a million-dollar Òlife insuranceÓ deal to rejoin the Tories and support them in toppling the Liberals. Prime Minister Stephen Harper insists his party did not offer Cadman a bribe, which is a criminal offence, and last Thursday went so far as to launch a $2.5 million libel suit against the Liberals, who have been demanding answers in response to the Cadman family allegations. In the circumstances, one would think Harper would be eager for the truth to come out and lift the cloud of doubt hanging over his party, instead of resorting to libel chill. Likewise, one would assume that NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has accused the Conservatives of telling Òhalf-truths, half the time,Ó would support the Liberals and Bloc Qubcois in their efforts to find out what actually happened in the Cadman affair. But fearing the Liberals would gain the limelight in a public hearing, the NDP last week joined the Conservatives to prevent the House of Commons ethics committee from probing the allegations. That led the Liberals to take their case to the justice committee, which deals with Criminal Code issues. But twice last week that committeeÕs chair, Conservative MP Art Hanger, thwarted the Liberals by charging out of the room and bringing the meeting to an abrupt halt. Moments before his first flight from the room last Tuesday, Hanger told committee members he Òwould be very disappointed if our committee was turned into a partisan witch hunt that went down the road of unsubstantiated scandal for the sake of electoral grandstanding.Ó But who is playing partisan politics here? A prime minister who sues the Liberals while his point man on the justice committee prevents them from asking fair questions? How can Hanger talk about Òunsubstantiated scandalÓ when so many questions remain to be answered? What, for example, did Harper mean when he told CadmanÕs biographer about Òfinancial considerationsÓ for the dying MP? Harper and Hanger should know that their outlandish responses only make it look as if they do, indeed, have something to hide.
