Ken Dryden

[Ethics, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, day after day I have asked the Prime Minister to explain his own words. With his silence, I have tried to put together what is already publicly known, giving him every benefit of the doubt. But every scenario leads to the same place, trying to buy a vote to bring down a government.

To the Prime Minister, it is time for an answer. Do not slink down. Look up. Stand up. Explain.

[Ethics, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, nothing. Nothing. The Prime Minister just sits there with every question, slinking lower into his seat, deeper into his papers, hoping it will all go away. Well, it is not going away.

To the Prime Minister: just look up, just stand up, just explain.

[Ethics, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who is willing to speak to Mr. Cadman's words and Mrs. Cadman's, and what they mean, but who is not willing to speak to his own words and what they mean. Why?

His own words. He knows what he said and why he said them. Instead, silence. Day after day.

To the Prime Minister, it is time. Just look up, just stand up, just explain.

[Ethics, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talked of conversations he and his representatives had with Mr. Cadman. It may be that over time, in their minds, they decided they were not really talking about an offer, even though that is not what Mr. Cadman told his family, but more an understanding, something they put on the table for Mr. Cadman so no matter which way he voted, he would have what was rightfully his.

The problem is, no matter how generous the explanation we come up with, it still adds up to an inducement to vote in a way that would bring down a government.

I ask the Prime Minister to just stand, just explain why not.

[Ethics, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, given the Cadman family's words and the Prime Minister's words, how can all this be explained credibly and plausibly?

It may be that Mr. Cadman was in a bind. He had this big life insurance policy if he stayed on as an MP, but if there was an election and he did not run, or ran and lost, it was gone and he had his family to think about.

It may be that the Prime Minister and his representatives came to persuade themselves the parliamentary insurance policy itself was the real inducement, that in their minds they were just fighting a wrong, to allow Mr. Cadman to vote any way he wanted.

I ask the Prime Minister, is this what happened?

[Ethics, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in 1972 there was a break-in at the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee in Washington. Described at the time as a third-rate burglary, with the obstruction of justice and perjury which followed, it brought down a president.

Here, if the Cadmans are right and the Prime Minister's words say what they seem to say, this is no third-rate burglary. This is about buying a vote to bring down a government. Imagine how CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post would cover this.

To the Prime Minister: Tell us how all this happened.

[Ethics, April 8th, 2008]

The problem for him was that the vote would be so close that Mr. Cadman's vote might make the difference.

Mr. Cadman was terminally ill and had a big incentive not to defeat the Liberals, the parliamentary life insurance policy. Even if an offer to him would only neutralize an incentive which should not exist, the problem was that such an offer would be illegal. It would be about buying a vote to bring down a government. That is as bad as it gets.

To the Prime Minister: Is that what happened?

[Ethics, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wanted to bring down the Liberal government in May 2005. The problem for him--

[Ethics, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, if he was willing to answer, might go on this way.

“So, I talked with Chuck several times, but he was not interested. He already had his life insurance policy and besides, this would be illegal. But our guys still wanted to run it by him. I told them it wouldn't work. He'd made up his mind. But they still wanted to try”.

For the Prime Minister: Is this how it happened?

[Ethics, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Prime Minister many times to explain his words on the Zytaruk tape, but he has chosen not to. Until he does, I will try my best to understand what he would say if he did answer.

He might say: “Chuck was dying and he knew it, and if he died as an MP, his family would receive a much larger parliamentary benefit than if he were a former MP. So this was an incentive for him to vote with the Liberal government, but if he had another insurance policy that would pay out the same amount, he could then vote however he wanted and not be distracted by what he shouldn't be distracted by”.

For the Prime Minister: Is this how it all began?