Stephen Harper Directly Implicated in Bribery Allegation

Political corruption at the highest levels of Canada’s government appears to be happening with frightening regularity these days.

While the Country has borne witness over the past several months to the spectacle of the Mulroney scandal and the reasons behind the former PM’s acceptance of a quarter of a million dollars in cash from a known arms dealer, the quest for the title of “most corrupt” in the Nation’s capitol goes on.

After the Liberal sponsorship scandal the newly minted Conservative party of Canada, under leader Stephen Harper, sailed to an election victory on a promise to clean up government once and for all. A new era of “accountability” was the clarion call that led the Conservatives to the seat of power in Ottawa.

Now, more than two years later very little has changed and it’s business as usual up on the hill.

The people of Canada find themselves with an accountability act that is little more than a watered down perversion of its original promise. The Conservative government has yet to implement all of the actions set out in its own legislation. The PMO has made it standard practice to scapegoat government employees for any and all failures in its own administration and allegations of bribery, by none other than Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself, are now beginning to surface.

In a recently released biography of late federal MP Chuck Cadman, an independent in the House of Commons, his widow alleges the Conservative party leadership offered Mr. Cadman a $1 million dollar life insurance policy shortly before his death. The offer was made on the condition that he vote with the Conservative party and help them topple the sitting government in what can arguabley be described as an illegal and underhanded bloodless coup, Canadian style.

Cadman's widow and daughter both say that two Conservative representatives made a $1-million life insurance offer to the dying MP, who was suffering from terminal cancer at the time, in return for his support on a May 2005 confidence motion.

To set the stage, at the time of the vote on implementation of the federal budget, Mr. Cadman had been ill for some time and was a mere weeks away from death. The Liberal government of Paul Martin was a beaten and battered shadow of its former self after the sponsorship debacle had nearly played itself out. Hanging in the balance were, among other things, the survival of the Liberal government and the long awaited implementation of the hard fought Atlantic Accord contracts between Ottawa, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador, contracts that would later be unilaterally undermined by the Harper government after taking office.

Sadly Mr. Cadman died of cancer two months after the critical vote, a vote in which he refused to side with the Conservative party.

In not supporting the Conservative cause Mr. Cadman’s lone vote allowed the bill to pass, the government of the day survived, for a short time at least, and the Atlantic Accord contracts become a reality.

Now, his widow, Dona Cadman, a Conservative candidate herself, claims that shortly before his death her husband told her and her daughter that he had been approached by members of the opposition Conservative party with the offer to buy his vote in Parliament.

Dona Cadman has since told reporters that her husband was livid at the offer.

While the Conservative leadership has been busy of late trying to diffuse and refute the claims, saying they are nothing more than hearsay since Mr. Cadman is not around to speak on the matter himself, on Friday a three-year-old radio interview surfaced that lends a great deal of credibility to the Cadman family's claims.

In a June of 2005 interview with radio station CKNW, Mr. Cadman himself told the Globe and Mail's Dan Cook that the Tories did, in fact, make him financial offers days before the crucial vote.

"There was certainly some, you know, some offers made and some things along those lines about not opposing me and helping out with the finances of the campaign and that sort of thing…”

Another tape, released Thursday, clearly indicates that Prime Minister Stephen Harper, leader of the official opposition at the time, not only knew of the offer to the ailing Cadman but that he supported the buying of a Parliamentary vote, an act that is a direct violation of Canadian law.

Author Tom Zytaruk has released a 2:37 second taped interview with Harper made in September 2005. On the recording, Harper confirms that party officials made a financial appeal to Cadman.

The RCMP are now investigating the allegations but if the decades old Mulroney-Schreiber affair is any indication, no political figure will ever be charged in the case, least of all the Prime Minister himself.

Beware of False Profits

Defence Minister and Nova Scotia political turncoat, Peter MacKay, jumped to the defense of fellow party member Loyola Hearn while in Newfoundland and Labrador this week saying Hearn is getting an unfairly rough ride at home.

"Sometimes you know, a prophet is least appreciated in his own land," said MacKay, while visiting the province over the weekend.

"He has shown tremendous leadership around the cabinet table … I think Loyola Hearn deserves a great deal of credit not only for what he brings to the cabinet table but what he brings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."

When Mr. MacKay speaks of what Loyola Hearn "brings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador" surely must be referring to the shame, disgust and outright betrayal felt by so many in the province. What else is there?

Betrayal on the removal of offshore revenues from the equalization formula (as promised by Stephen Harper).

Disgust for Hearn's claims that he has spies inside the provincial caucus who are informing him of the inner workings of the Premier's office.

Shame that a native son would walk away from his own promises to protect the fisheries by invoking custodial management of the offshore.

We've all heard of the Anti-Christ, and I'm not saying Mr. Hearn deserves that moniker, but to borrow Mr. Mackay's analogy, Mr. Hearn is perhaps closer to being an anti or false profit than the real deal.

During his time in the province Mr. MacKay also dismissed the "Anyone but Conservative" campaign being levelled at the Conservatives in the next federal election. I suspect however that with his inability to recognize the facts around Hearn and around his own status in Nova Scotia, Mr. Mackay is shooting for an unholy trinity of idiocy.

Stand and Deliver

How often have you heard the old axioms, “Stand and deliver”, “United we stand, divided we fall”, “If we don’t hang together we will surely hang alone” or any of a myriad of similar sentiments?

Their message is clear. If we remain silent, or merely shout from the shadows of anonymity, we are doomed to failure.

Unlike certain other bloggers, columnists and pundits I refuse to deny anyone the privilege of commenting under the protection of anonymity. I won’t deny anyone that ability no matter how much “flak” I get over it because there are rare circumstances when it is the only way to get a message out.

There are times when the only way truth can be uttered is by someone who feels the need to protect themselves or their families from potential repercussions. That said, I also believe that 99.9% of the time anonymity is unnecessary and nothing more than a cop out. I also believe there are rare occasions when anonymity is even used as a means of misdirection.

When I decided to create Web Talk as an experiment in communication a few years ago I made the conscious decision to make my full identity a matter of record no matter what the consequences. I realized from the outset that not doing so would undermine my credibility and leave the public questioning my motives.

I also realized that by going public I was leaving myself open to attack on a personal level. Attacks that might manifest in a verbal way (they have, though not as often as I expected), to my livelihood and employment and perhaps even to my physical well being or that of my family. To date, thankfully, neither of the latter concerns have been a factor but who knows what tomorrow brings.

So, why am I going on about this topic today rather than speaking on the more serious issues facing Newfoundland and Labrador?

Over the weekend I read two things that have led me to comment on this subject.

The first was an article in the Independent, by Ivan Morgan. In his commentary Ivan tore a major strip off of another writer who had directly attacked him without the intestinal fortitude to sign his name to the piece.

My reaction to Ivan Morgan’s article was, “Good for you”!!!

As I said, I permit anonymous posts because I don’t want to deny anyone the ability to get the truth out or to deliver opinions on the issues. I don’t believe however that it is the best way to get a message across and I certainly don’t agree with anyone who indulges in a personal attack without standing behind their words.

The second, and arguably more important reason for my comments today, has to do with an anonymous contributor to this very site.

In a comment left in response to my article, “Atlantica Lite – The New Solution” there have been some interesting comments, not the least of which was left on the site by an anonymous contributor. In the comment he or she presented the entire text of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech.

The words of that speech are some of the most inspiring ever written, especially under the circumstances in which they were delivered. The sentiments of Dr. King are timeless and universal in their call for equality. Why then would anyone feel the need to present them anonymously? Why would they feel the need to protect their identity?

What have we come to when people are afraid to say what’s on their minds. What are we so afraid of?

The biggest problem Newfoundland and Labrador must face as it moves into an unknown future doesn’t come from federal governments, uncaring business or unscrupulous political leaders. Our biggest problem lies within ourselves.

If we continue to speak up only under a veil of anonymity we are doomed.

If we fail to stand as a united front against those who would take advantage of our silence and acquiescence we are doomed.

If we are not willing to put our names, reputations and personal comfort on the line in the fight for a better tomorrow we are doomed.

Each of us needs to take a step back and ask ourselves:

When someone makes a derogatory remark about my homeland or my people do I remain silent or do I speak out proudly and boldly?

When a petition is circulated to battle the actions of the most powerful and influential in our land, do I sign it freely and openly or do I shrink away in fear of having my name connected with it?

When a wrong must to be addressed do I make it my duty to right that wrong?

When I feel that something has to be said, do I speak out loudly or do I hide in the shadows of silence or anonymity?

Once you answer those questions of yourself I’ll ask you one more time, how often have we all heard the old axioms, “Stand and deliver”, “United we stand, divided we fall”, or “If we don’t hang together we will surely hang alone”?

The price of success is one that must be paid if we hope to achieve anything at all.

Believe me when I say the biggest problem with standing behind your words does not come from anyone else but from inside yourself. Once you’ve taken the plunge and taken a stand the feeling of personal freedom you’ll come to feel will far outweigh anything your enemies can throw at you.

Take the chance and make a difference. Cast off the shadow of anonymity. Throw away the goundless aliases. Make your words your own and their power will amaze you.

Silence is the ally of our enemies. In silence we will find a future that is a reflection of our present and our past.