Thursday, February 28, 2008

The Cadman Story: Where Was Wallace?

The story of the late Chuck Cadman possibly being offered a life insurance bribe by two Conservative officials is continuing to deepen.

In 2005 when the Liberal government was vulnerable to falling, the independent Cadman's vote was pivotal. It is being alleged in a soon to be released book by Tom Zytaruk that according to Ms. Cadman Conservative members attempted to persuade Chuck Cadman to vote the government down by offering a million dollar life insurance policy. Ms. Cadman confirms that this is what she heard from her husband shortly after the meeting. However Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are denying such an offer was made. With Chuck Cadman no longer with us, it seems it is a matter of who you will believe.

The Globe and Mail reported that the story of Dona Cadman could be further collaberated by a Dan Wallace:

Mr. Zytaruk writes that the only person in the office at the time of the visit by the officials was Mr. Cadman's legislative assistant, Dan Wallace.
On this point it seemed the story could be either supported or weakened by an account of Mr. Wallace, however after many attempts of the media to get a hold of him, Mr. Wallace has as the CBC reports, denied he was in the room the meeting took place:
Dan Wallace, Cadman's legislative assistant who is also quoted in the book, said in a statement Thursday that he was not in the meeting with the two Conservative party representatives, and therefore not privy to the details.
So now the situation seems to revert back to a matter of who one is to believe, Ms. Cadman or the Conservative Party. Considering Ms. Cadman is the Conservative candidate for Surrey North, the fact she is disagreeing with the party's stance even with fear of repercussion, might add to her credibility, not to mention Dan Wallace himself has said she is completely trustworthy.

However the story is made more complex by Dan Wallace now disagreeing with Tom Zytaruk's book, and stating he was never in the room when the meeting took place. But as I'm writing this Tom Zytaruk is being interviewed by the CBC, and Mr. Zytaruk is clarifying that in regards to the description in his book of Dan Wallace being in the room, he is citing Dona Cadman as putting him there. Adding, that months ago when Zytaruk asked Wallace if he was indeed in the room, Wallace neither confirmed nor denied, but merely said, "I believe Dona Cadman as the day is long. She has no interest in fabricating anything.”

So in seeing that Wallace gave such a vague answer, that did indirectly place him in the room, I am left to think Wallace knew of the gravity of this incident and chose his words wisely. And because he did, either intentionally or not, he can say without an obvious contradiction he wasn't in the room even though his previous answer gave a different impression.

5 comments:

Steve V said...

Scott

Not sure if you caught Duffy today, but it was fascinating. Duffy said that Cadman had told him privately that he didn't want to vote against the budget, because he didn't want to risk losing his MP insurance plan, he was worried about dying and his wife. What nobody seemed to notice, Duffy actually connects some dots here, because we now know that Cadman was worried about his own life insurance plan, which makes the Con offer all the more consistent. Cadman was worried about insurance, the Cons try to allay those fears, should he vote with them, with an offer of their own. Duffy's comments today, which weren't intended to help this story, actually support the theme.

Anonymous said...

I did not see it, but I'll try to on CTV's site. I was born in Surrey, I always like Chuck. This isn't just some story about some government scandal; your comment illustrates the more human story here, of a dying man worried more about the people who he's going to be leaving behind then his own life. All the while some evil men attempt to use Chuck's worries against him for their own gain, they use his own noble selflessness as a possible leverage to further their own careers. This story is wrong for the possible bribe, but is far worse for the immoral alleged actions of these Conservatives.
-scott

wilson said...

Things in the book that have been proved wrong so far:

-Wallace was assumed to be in the meeting with Cons and Cadman.

-Chuck said the meeting was 2 days later than Dona's recollection of the date.

-The will of his constituents was why he did not vote down the Martin government.

Think afew 'details' about the insurance policy got a little lost in the translation too???

Anonymous said...

Wilson: If you read my posts you would see Wallace when interviewed initially by Zytaruk didn't give a direct answer, and Zytaruk stated this, as I noted. I believe Wallace knew the gravity of this and chose his words wisely in talking to Zytaruk. Considering Dona Cadman says Wallace was there and Wallace has at the very least modified his position, you can't suggest the book is wrong. You could suggest there's disagreement but not that the book is wrong or right for that matter on that point.

As for your second point there's no reason to suggest there was only one meeting. Some are saying there was two meetings.

Thirdly, Chuck Cadman always respected the wishes of his constituents and he did poll them.

-scott

Steve V said...

scott

Wilson is irrelevant here, per usual. Carry on...