No closure

It didn't appear to receive much attention at the time. But Bill Siksay's efforts to get answers on Cadscam and the ensuing Con/Lib settlement appear to have been met by a striking talking point:

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, despite attempts by the Conservatives and Liberals to sweep the Cadman affair under the rug, Canadians still have a right to know what really happened. Sadly, the secret deal between the Conservatives and the Liberals appears to be an attempt to leave those questions unanswered.

Given the extremely serious allegations and the weeks of fury they caused in the House, and in the interests of full disclosure and transparency, will the Prime Minister make public all documents that would have been produced as part of the lawsuit?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and I am pleased to report to the House that the matter is closed.

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
It is not closed to the public, Mr. Speaker.

Weeks before this secret settlement was reached, the Prime Minister's lawyer in the Cadman affair abruptly withdrew from the case. This led to speculation. Did he realize that the case could not be won? Was it an ethical issue? The Prime Minister will know that solicitor-client privilege does not prevent him, as the client, from explaining what happened.

Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians the reasons that his lawyer, Mr. Rick Dearden, withdrew?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 30(5) of the House provides me with the occasion to respond to questions from members across the way, so I add to my previous answer by pointing out that the matter is closed.

Now, it's arguable that Siksay's focus on the lawsuit could be seen as making for questions about something which is effectively done with. But even then, one would think that Canadians could rightfully expect that the terms and nature of the settlement agreement between the Prime Minister and the Official Opposition would be seen as a matter of some public interest.

More importantly, though, it should be obvious that the more serious issues surrounding the Cons' actual offers to Chuck Cadman remain entirely unresolved. And since the Cons have lost the "before the courts" excuse to avoid answering for their actions, now would seem to be the time to make clear that they can't simply declare the matter closed.

Not yet forgotten

Tom Zytaruk weighs in on the Con/Lib Cadscam secrecy pact. And perhaps not surprisingly, he's less than pleased with both of the parties involved:

Tom Zytaruk, author of the book that prompted sensational Liberal allegations of bribery against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and subsequently the Prime Minister's unprecedented $3.5-million defamation lawsuit against the Grits, says it's a "distasteful concept" that the Conservatives and the Liberals have now agreed to never disclose details of the settlement after Mr. Harper suddenly dropped his lawsuit earlier this month.

"A lot of Canadians would disagree with that, that everything should be tidily forgotten about," Mr. Zytaruk told The Hill Times last week. "The whole concept of two political parties just deciding that this isn't up for discussion anymore is kind of a distasteful concept."

Unsettling

As Greg points out, the Libs' apparent unwillingness to discuss anything to do with Cadscam looks awfully suspicious. So let's compare the Libs' apparent position with what might have been expected in assessing the outcome of the Cons' strategy to suppress a scandal.

Here's Ralph Goodale's response to a question about Pierre Poilievre's latest smear of Tom Zytaruk in Parliament:

Outside the Commons Friday, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said he could not comment, because the terms of the Liberals' settlement of the lawsuit preclude him from discussing the case.

“Mr. Poilievre, presumably using the protection of parliamentary privilege, made some remarks. Perhaps he should be pressed to explain himself,” Mr. Goodale said.

Now, one of the main unanswered questions about the settlement was just what it was that the Libs had agreed not to talk about. And the more likely prospect also seemed to be the more palatable one: that any agreement limiting the Libs' ability to do their job as the opposition would extend only to the specific bribery accusation that gave rise to Harper's defamation lawsuit, rather than rendering the Libs unable to comment on a matter of public interest.

But from Goodale's response, the opposite appears to be true. While the contents of Zytaruk's tape and other questions about the Cons' offers to Cadman were public issues before any of the statements which gave rise to the lawsuit, the Libs are apparently operating under the assumption that Cadscam as a whole - which of course is far from being resolved - is included in what they've agreed not to discuss. Which raises a serious concern about why an opposition party would agree to those kinds of terms.

And that goes doubly when one notes that Goodale himself recognizes a significant need for Poilievre and the Cons to be held to account for their continued attacks on Zytaruk. It would seem virtually impossible to reconcile the view that Poilievre "should be pressed to explain himself" with an agreement not to make that happen - particularly coming from a party which is otherwise bleating about the need for accountability to originate from opposition benches.

Of course, there isn't much anybody else can do to reverse the Libs' bad choices. But now that their ineffective opposition extends beyond propping up the Harper government to agreeing not to raise subjects which the Cons find inconvenient, there should be all the more motivation to make sure the responsibility to hold the Cons in check is held by a party which is up for the task.

Tale of the tape

Following up on last night's post, maybe it'll be another tape entirely that proves to be the big story of the campaign's final weekend. And if a legal gambit intended to keep one of the Cons' ethical issues out of the campaign instead simultaneously puts Cadscam back into the news and lays bare the Cons' dishonesty in dealing with the issue...well, it couldn't happen to a more deserving party.

A closer examination

Impolitical and Dave have already covered a couple of the interesting angles from Stephen Harper's Cadscam cross-examination. But let's note two more points which figure to undercut both Harper's position in the ongoing lawsuit, and his ability to claim any competence or responsibility in managing his party.

First, even in testimony dealing specifically with a motion to suppress Tom Zytaruk's taped conversation based on alleged doctoring, Harper still doesn't seem to have even a hint of explanation of what he thinks was altered. From the CP:

Though Mr. Harper has not taken any legal action against Mr. Zytaruk, he has contended since June that a tape of the interview Mr. Zytaruk conducted with him outside Dona Cadman's home was doctored.

Mr. Zytaruk is heard asking Mr. Harper about the life insurance policy. Mr. Harper is heard saying he did not know the details but was aware party representatives had approached Mr. Cadman with an offer of "financial considerations" in case of a snap election.

Mr. Harper has since said the financial considerations included campaign expenses and support, but added more detail during the cross-examination...

Mr. Paliare also questioned Mr. Harper over his assertion that the Zytaruk tape had been doctored and Mr. Harper said several times he believed Mr. Zytaruk himself altered the tape.

Now, if Harper wanted to successfully challenge the tape as an inaccurate depiction of his answer at the time, one would expect him to be able to offer at least some idea what he would have actually said which was shifted out of context.

But nothing in the media reports currently available suggests that even Harper's cross-examination turned up any example of inaccuracy in how the tape portrays the conversation. And indeed, the fact that Harper seems to have spent much of his time explaining exactly what he meant on the tape suggests that he recognizes the tape's content as sufficiently accurate to provide useful evidence of what he said at the time.

Second, there's once again the matter of Harper turning a blind eye to the possibility of wrongdoing in his party. From Canwest's coverage:

Mr. Harper said that when Mrs. Cadman first asked him in September 2005 if he knew anything about Conservative representatives offering her husband a $1-million life insurance policy, he did not know her husband had told her about it and did not ask where she heard that. He thought it was a product of the rumour mill on Parliament Hill.

"My first reaction to the story was it sounded preposterous to me," Mr. Harper said. "I couldn't understand how or why anyone would offer a man with cancer a life insurance policy. It didn't make a lot of sense to me. It didn't sound like a believable story."

Once again, this signals the continued disconnect between Harper's apparent trust in Dona Cadman as the Cons' candidate in Surrey North, and his complete disregard for everything she's had to say about the offers to her husband.

But let's assume that Harper could reasonably have figured that the one person closest to Chuck Cadman throughout the entire relevant time period was more likely relying on Parliament Hill gossip than on, say, what she'd heard from her husband. (And let's go a step further and assume there was no need for Harper to follow up with Dona Cadman directly to clarify the source of her suspicions.)

Even then, wouldn't a responsible party leader want to make sure that his first impression was right, if the alternative was that unknown party members were going around making illegal offers without authorization?

Ultimately, Harper's testimony serves up another indication of his eagerness to ignore the possibility of wrongdoing within his party. And whatever details emerge (or not) about any other offer, that can only offer a signal to Cons and Canadians alike that as long as Harper's in charge, he and his minions won't ever be held responsible for anything they do.

A well-defined role

As part of her entertaining live-blogging of the Cons' latest Cabinet shuffle, Kady O'Malley wonders whether James Moore's promotion to a Secretary of State position means that he'll no longer be the Cons' attack dog on the Cadscam file. But I'd think that his new responsibility for Official Languages is entirely in keeping with his Cadscam role. After all, what position could possibly give Moore a better platform to continue his longstanding push to drain the words "financial considerations" of their normal English meaning?

Choosing the messenger

Following up on yesterday's post about some of the more important remaining questions in Cadscam, I'll briefly take issue with one of Scott's underlying assumptions. While James Moore may be the talking head currently assigned to the file, there's no reason why he should be expected to deliver any of the relevant answers; instead, it's Stephen Harper alone who can actually provide any useful information if he chooses to do so.

After all, Moore isn't the plaintiff who's seeking to suppress Tom Zytaruk's recording of his conversation with Harper, and thus making the strategic choices Scott wonders about.

Moore wasn't privy to the conversation between Harper and Zytaruk, such as to be able to provide any explanation as to what context could possibly provide any justification for Harper's recorded words.

And Moore isn't the party leader who has apparently chosen to close ranks rather than ordering any investigation into his own candidate's sworn statement that two party representatives tried to bribe her husband.

Aside from anybody who can shed light as to who actually made the million-dollar insurance policy offer on May 17, 2005 that Dona Cadman has sworn to hearing about, nobody from the Cons other than Harper himself can possibly pretend to have anything relevant to say about the matter. And the more the Cons choose to present people who obviously have nothing useful to say as their public voices on the topic, the more reason there'll be to wonder what those in the know are hiding.

Open questions

While Scott has listed a few questions worth asking in light of Stephen Harper's injunction motion, the area I find particularly interesting arises from Dona Cadman's affidavit:

Prior to my meeting with Mr. Harper on September 9, 2005, I told Mr. Zytaruk that on May 17, 2005 my husband told me earlier that day two Conservative Party representatives had offered him a $1 million insurance policy. My husband never revealed the identities of these two people to me...It is my clear recollection that the date that my husband told me that he had received the offer of a $1 million insurance policy was May 17, 2005 and not May 19, 2005.

With that paragraph, Harper himself has put before a court sworn testimony to the effect that Chuck Cadman was offered an insurance policy by two Con representatives on May 17, 2005, and informed Dona Cadman of the offer that same day.

Now, it strikes me as highly doubtful that two Con representatives acting in concert would have approached Cadman without at least somebody else having some idea what was going on. But even if that's the case, Harper would be in the best position to encourage his party's operatives to speak up as to who offered what when. And he'd seemingly have a strong incentive to do so - lest his party otherwise continue to be represented by individuals who had in fact tried to bribe Cadman.

So who was it that made the visit on the 17th at which an insurance policy actually was offered (which Cadman so clearly remembers hearing about at the time)? Who else, if anybody, has known about the visit and said nothing about it? And why doesn't Harper seem the least bit concerned with figuring out who it was that made the offer on behalf of his party?

(Edit: fixed typos.)

On timing

So much for my theory that Stephen Harper might have wanted to get his injunction application out of the way quickly to ensure any damage was done with long before a possible election campaign, as the motion documents (posted by Stephen Taylor) indicate that the motion won't be argued until September. But if the motion wasn't enough of a long shot already, the delay figures to make it even less likely to succeed: how can Harper try to argue that an injunction is needed to prevent irreparable harm three months from now if the lack of one isn't a problem in the meantime?

Risk and reward

While others are understandably scratching their heads as to what the Cons could possibly have been thinking in reigniting Cadscam, my impression is that there's a relatively obvious explanation. But that doesn't mean for a second that the move speaks anything but poorly to the Cons' motives.

In essence, the Cons' application for an injunction against any use of the tape looks like little more than buying a political lottery ticket. The cost of the effort falling on its face is likely relatively low: by choosing their timing in applying for the injunction, the Cons are betting that even if they take a momentary PR hit, the application will be long forgotten by the time any election rolls around.

(Note that the Cons' perception of safety may be just one more side effect of the Libs' telegraphing their political strategies, as a credible threat of a summer election might have made the risk far higher.)

In contrast, the Cons obviously recognize how powerful a message they might face based on Harper's words being used against him. And if the Cons were to hit the jackpot in their application, then they'd be able to go into the next election campaign without any fear of the Libs being able to make use of the recording.

Moreover, if Harper were able to successfully argue in the injunction application that the tape should be seen as unreliable, that would likely help to strengthen his position if he keeps up his lawsuit against the Libs. Indeed, strong enough language in an injunction decision might make it extremely difficult for the Libs to make use of the tape within the litigation - which could remove what otherwise looks to be a virtually inescapable need for Harper to personally testify as to the contents of the tape to have any hope of succeeding.

In sum, it seems relatively reasonable for the Cons to conclude that the chance to bolster their position when it counts made the application worth trying now. But what about the Cons' decision to call a press conference about it?

Well, that's entirely consistent with Harper's obsessive need to manage public appearances. The injunction application would almost surely be reported either way, and with the Cons making the first public announcement, they at least briefly placed the focus on alleged "doctoring" of the tape rather than either their attempt to stifle opposition, or the plain truth of what Harper was recorded saying.

Of course, it's in those two factors that the Cons' action - even if explicable based on the political risks and rewards involved - is itself a serious problem. If Harper genuinely sees himself as entitled to edit out of existence even his own words when those prove politically damaging, then it's hard to imagine what limit there could be to his willingness to suppress reality in the name of his political interests. And even in the face of the Cons' parade of scandals and gaffes, that may make for the single most important reason why a change in government is long overdue.

A bit of a break

Expect light to no blogging from this space over the next week as I'll be on holiday. In the meantime, though, here's a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking to consider.

For all the (misdirected) flak the NDP has taken for not simply echoing the Libs' position on Cadscam and other issues, I do have to wonder whether the NDP missed some significant opportunities in trying to turn attention to other issues altogether.

In particular, now that the Cons are more interested in patronage than populism, my recollection is that the NDP is the only party in Parliament calling for a restriction on floor-crossing. And while Cadman's situation might not have fallen within the scope of floor-crossing as such, the proposed justice committee hearings would seem to offer a great opportunity to discuss both the possibility of limiting transfer of MPs into a federal party through means other than Criminal Code provisions, and the plight of independent MPs under our current election financing laws.

Of course, the likely result would be to provoke the Cons and Libs into a pie fight as to why their past gain/loss of Brison/Stronach/Turner is entirely different from the other party's gain/loss of Emerson/Khan/Comuzzi. But that would seem to serve all the better to paint the Cons and Libs as indistinguishable from each other - making the NDP's position stand out as a populist alternative, rather than being buried as the same one shared by other actors.

So, should the NDP have taken up the Cadman story as a means to talk about empowering individual MPs rather than parties? And is it too late to do so now?

Material witnesses

It doesn't seem to have attracted much attention at the time, but Gilles Duceppe's question on Cadscam yesterday points out an interesting thread in James Moore's answers in Parliament:

(T)he Prime Minister, like everyone in our caucus, knew that Chuck Cadman had received an offer to rejoin our caucus, run for election and be re-elected as a Conservative.

Now, to date Deceivin' Stephen has largely succeeding in funneling all questions through himself, Moore and Peter Van Loan for their usual combination of non-answers and non sequiturs.

But Moore's answer would seem to suggest that the Cons' caucus as a whole was informed of at least some discussions about Cadman in 2005. And that would add dozens more names to the list of individuals who may also be able to shed light on at least some of the party's internal discussions about Cadman - not to mention far more likelihood than before that somebody outside Harper's most trusted cadre of advisors knows something worth bringing to light.

How far they've come...

Greg Weston puts forward his theory as to what the Cons may have offered Chuck Cadman for his vote. And if he's right, then the scam may have represented the Cons' ultimate repudiation of the movement that gave rise to Harper's party in its current form:

At the risk of inciting mass-protests from the federal pension department, here is a rough estimate of what might have been in the offing for Cadman.

At the time of Cadman's meeting with the two Conservative operatives, he was 57 years old and had been a sitting MP for just over eight years.

As such, he was entitled to an MP's pension, or "retiring allowance" as it is known, regardless if there were an election.

That retiring allowance, based on Cadman's eight years of service, would have been about $29,000 a year.

When he died two months after the mystery meeting, his widow would have been entitled to 60% of that amount, or just over $17,000 a year for the rest of her life, while each of his children would get 10% annually, or just under $3,000.

But a provision in the Commons pension plan allows an MP to "buy" more years of service, either by paying a lump-sum, or through increased monthly premiums over any period up to 20 years.

If Cadman bought an extra 10 years of service, it would have increased the pension to his widow by something in the order of $30,000 a year, and to his children by over $3,000 apiece.

If she lived another 30 years, her dying husband would have effectively provided his family with additional pension benefits worth about $1 million -- something Cadman might well have considered a "$1-million life-insurance policy."

For now, I don't have time to take a detailed look at the law surrounding that kind of scheme: while a party contribution to a candidate is indeed excepted from some of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, it's hard to see how a loan on special terms wouldn't be seen as a "compensation" under the Parliament of Canada Act. And it's possible that the Cons may have been asking Cadman to take much of the legal risk if money was put into his campaign coffers which wasn't intended to be used for valid electoral purposes.

That said, regardless of the ultimate legal analysis, it would seem deliciously ironic if the heirs to the Reform legacy of protesting "gold-plated MP pensions" attempted to buy their way into power by purchasing a vote with nearly a million dollars from the current MP pension system. And that might explain why Harper would be afraid to admit the facts even if the scheme narrowly managed to stay on the right side of the law.

In agreement

The Globe and Mail reports that Lib Ethics Committee Chair Paul Szabo agrees with NDP MP Pat Martin's take that for now, Cadscam should be dealt with by the RCMP rather than the committee:

(E)ven the Liberal chairman of (the ethics) committee does not agree that it is the right venue for an airing of the facts in the Cadman case.

“The best outcome here to clear the water is for an RCMP investigation,” Paul Szabo said. “We're not a court. We can't lay charges. It would just delay, ultimately, the process.”

Which would seem to give those principled Libs who have spent the last couple of days bashing Martin for saying the exact same thing a choice if they want to be consistent: they can either turn their vitriol against Szabo as well on the substance of the matter, or alternatively start slamming Elizabeth May for being the lone holdout against a united national opposition front. But needless to say, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either to happen.

On political choices

I'll toss in my two cents in response to Steve's concerns about the NDP's stance on Cadscam. While I don't agree entirely with Pat Martin's public stances, it seems to me there's an awfully good reason for the Ethics Committee not to drop everything now in order to race to deal with Cadscam - not because it wouldn't be a plus to deal with the matter quickly, but because of what the committee would presumably leave behind in order to do so.

Remember that one of the major recent questions in the Mulroney/Schreiber scandal (remember that?) was when - if ever - Deceivin' Stephen would keep his promise to call a public inquiry. While the opposition may have reasonably expected the inquiry to start once the Ethics Committee's hearings ended, Con MP Russ Hiebert has made clear that Harper plans on waiting until after the committee completes its report into the matter. And if anybody thinks Heibert had anything but the full approval of Harper in putting that position forward, Doug Finley has a million-dollar life insurance policy he'd like to sell them.

So why not simply put Mulroney/Schreiber on hold while dealing with Cadscam, and finish off the report later? As I've pointed out earlier, without some kind of mandate to keep Schreiber in the country, there's every danger that the Cons could find some way to shuttle him off the continent and permanently bury any potential inquiry. Which would of course cost Canadians any hope of getting to the truth behind another major Con scandal, and equally cost the opposition the political gains that come with getting to the facts behind Harper's Godfather.

And even if Schreiber wasn't sent on the next available plane across the Atlantic, it's still entirely possible that Harper would declare that with the committee having lost interest, he wouldn't see any reason to follow through on the promised inquiry.

As a result, the choice isn't necessarily between dealing with Cadscam now and Mulroney later or vice versa. Instead, the choice may well be between dealing with Mulroney now to keep both issues live - or putting all the opposition's eggs in one basket and missing out on another prime opportunity to highlight the past the Cons would prefer to bury.

Of course, the Mulroney/Schreiber story doesn't necessarily reflect well on the Libs either...which is why it's understandable that they'd be looking for a narrative of all Cadscam, all the time. But if one's goal is to get all the Cons' shady dealings into the public eye, it's entirely reasonable to want to make sure the Ethics Committee finishes off its Mulroney report as the top current priority.

Worst. Bluff. Ever.

Deceivin' Stephen figures that a threat to sue the Libs for defamation will somehow help his own cause when it comes to Cadscam. But let's consider what would actually happen if a lawsuit went forward.

After all, as much as the Cons would like to make the issue one of parliamentary privilege alone, truth (or technically "justification") is a full defence to a claim in libel. And if the Libs were to raise that as a defence, with the alleged truth of their statements brought into issue, they'd be entitled to full disclosure of any documents relevant to the question of what the Cons did or didn't offer to Cadman.

Of course, the libel notice seems to want to make the cut both ways by demanding access to the Libs' own internal computer systems. But it's hard to see how that could be of any relevance to what was actually published - while the Libs' entitlement to information from the Cons would be obvious.

What's more, Harper would almost certainly have to testify personally as to what actually happened. And as thoroughly as the Cons may be able to stonewall during the course of an hour-long question period or even a committee hearing, it would be an entirely different matter for Harper to avoid saying something damaging during an extended examination for discovery focused on a detailed review of such topics as what he meant by "financial considerations (Cadman) might lose due to an election" in his taped interview with Tom Zytaruk.

And of course Flanagan, Finley, and anybody else with relevant knowledge would come under similar scrutiny - potentially laying bare the Cons' entire command structure. Which means that if Harper were foolish enough to actually go forward with the threatened lawsuit, the effect might well be to finally open the floodgates to exactly the kind of information which the Cons have gone to severe lengths to suppress.

Finally, the outcome of a trial would depend almost entirely on a technical discussion as to the definition of the word "bribe". Which must surely be the last word Harper wants permanently associated with himself personally - especially when it's not too late to try to deflect most of the responsibility.

In sum, the Libs' response to the libel threat should be a hearty "bring it on". And if the added bonus is to see Harper back down, they surely can't complain about that result either.

On creative insults

For all the justified talk about Cadscam this weekend, I'm surprised one tidbit seems to have passed without notice even as Garth Turner blogged about his exchange with James Moore:

Hon. Garth Turner (l): Thank you, speaker. When I was a Conservative member of parliament, before that party threw me out, I heard the prime minister call Chuck Cadman a poor M.P. The prime minister said Mr. Cadman was more concerned with ethics and with the country than he was with political organization and power.

Mr. Speaker, I have always wondered why the prime minister was so angry at the late Chuck Cadman, but now we know a lot more. Was it simply because he could not be bribed?

The speaker: The honourable parliamentary secretary to the minister of public works.

James Moore (c): Mr. Speaker, how dare — the member from Halton never served with Chuck Cadman. He didn’t know Chuck Cadman. Chuck Cadman supported the prime minister when he was leader of the opposition, supported him in his leadership races. The prime minister wanted him to rejoin the Conservative party.

Chuck Cadman was a dear friend of mine from a neighboring riding. And we always supported Chuck Cadman. He was a fantastic human being, a great member of parliament and a dear friend. He has no proof. He has no evidence that the prime minister ever said that about Chuck Cadman. That’s outrageous.

We honour Chuck Cadman’s memory. He was a dear friend. The member from Halton should withdraw that ridiculous question and statement.

From what I can tell, Moore's response offers one of the best examples yet of Cons' crass partisan focus - and the gap between that narrow-minded view and what Canadians would actually expect from their government.

Turner's question can be broken into two premises: that Cadman was known to put ethics and principles ahead of purely partisan interests, and that as far as Harper was concerned that made Cadman a "poor M.P.". The lone statement about Cadman personally is the first one, while the latter is obviously a matter of Harper's judgment rather than a direct slight to Cadman.

But Moore's choice of responses - which of course fit with the Cons' set of talking points last week - was to the effect that Turner's question somehow represented an affront to Cadman, to the point where it would be necessary to rebut it with a positive opinion of Cadman. Which leads to the question of what in Turner's question could possibly be offensive to Cadman personally.

From what I can tell, Moore's attempt to claim outrage on Cadman's behalf only makes sense if one assumes either:
- that it's actually an insult to describe somebody as more concerned with ethics than political power; or
- that Harper personally is infallible, such that the mere fact that he had offered his disapproval must be a sign of bad character on the part of the subject without even considering whether Harper was in the wrong.

What's truly sad is that based on how the Cons have operated under Harper, it's entirely possible that one or both could be seen as true within the party. But it seems highly likely that most of the swing voters who they're now courting would disagree strongly with both - and that the more Harper's "Cons over country" philosophy gets aired in public, the less likely those voters are to provide Harper with the power he's so bent on pursuing.

Bogus analysis

Shorter Jonathan Kay:
While we're at it, Brian Mulroney is a well-connected lawyer, businessman and Prime Minister of Canada. So we can dismiss out of hand the possibility that he would have jeopardized his reputation by taking cash in a paper bag.