[align=center]
Standards of accuracy at Liberal Caucus Research[/align]I can understand why the Liberals have embraced the Chuck Cadman allegations -- or, more accurately, third-hand allegations, three years after the fact, when the man in question is deceased. Anything to change the channel from their budget debacle. You've really got to listen to the fogginess of the allegations here to understand what we're dealing with. Add in the facts that:
*the two people at that meeting who are still alive categorically deny the allegations;
*the allegations were made public as the book's publisher was putting the book to market;
*for some reason, former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin was given a draft copy of the book;
*it's impossible to buy a million-dollar insurance policy for someone quickly dying of cancer;
*such an expenditure by the Conservatives could not be secretly approved;
*a cautious, calm hand like Tom Flanagan would not think a single vote was worth the near-million dollars such a policy would cost, given the imminence of the Liberals' defeat;
*nor would Flanagan think it would be a sound political risk to put such a bribe to a principled man like Cadman (or anyone); andto put it to him a few minutes before the vote they were trying to influence would be absurd and incredible.
Is there some way for us to measure the accuracy of the Liberal claims, other than by gut feel? Is there a way to see how carefully they measure facts, and how ethically they deploy them?
I think there is. Because, as part of their Question Period attack against the Tories yesterday, I came across this gem:
"Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval-Les Iles, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear such things, seeing as Mr. Cadman's legislative assistant confirmed that everything Mr. Cadman's widow said was true. What are they trying to accomplish by saying things like that?
There are plenty more examples of suspicious activity. A former member of Parliament for the Prime Minister's riding, Ezra Levant, also received a lot of money to give up his seat to the Prime Minister himself. This government does not hesitate to flout election laws, and it could not care less about respect. Words fail me—" My first reaction was delight, to learn that I had, in fact, been a "former member of Parliament". My second response was embarrassment, because I don't think I showed up even for a single vote.
My third reaction was anger that I was accused of "suspicious activity" and being part of a plan to "flout election laws". That's pretty clear: Raymonde Folco is accusing me of taking part in an illegal act.
Except that it's not true. Not only was I never an MP, but I never received -- nor was I even offered -- any compensation for stepping aside as the Canadian Alliance candidate for Stephen Harper. Of course, I would have liked to have been compensated for my election expenses to that point, though that would hardly have counted as "suspicious" and certainly wouldn't have "flouted election laws". But my wishes didn't happen.
Being called a law-breaker is about the worst defamation you could say about someone, especially a lawyer like me. It's a complete fabrication, factually inaccurate and completely unfair. But, because it was uttered in the House of Commons, it is protected by "absolute privilege". Ms. Folco is immune to a lawsuit.
Today my lawyers fired off
this letter to her. And, until she repeats her accusations outside of Parliament, the letter is all that can be done, legally. I'm relying on Ms. Folco's title as an "honourable member" of the House of Commons to correct the record voluntarily -- and to do so with the same conspicuousness with which she first blighted the record.
But given the zeal of the Liberals to trump up the Cadman claims into something real, I'm not holding my breath that they're going to admit to any factual errors or unethical charges right now amongst their barrage of accusations.
CKA Elite 
![[popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Eating Popcorn")
