|
By Lloyd Mackey
 I HOPE that today may be the last time I talk about the Chuck Cadman/Surrey North issue. It seems still to have some legs around the House of Commons, although the most recent polls indicate that not much attention is being paid among voters.
Last week's OttawaWatch had some interesting responses. One, from an anonymous writer who may well have been a lawyer, suggested that a fair number of questions still need to be answered. Further, the writer indicated, this situation paled in comparison to what the Liberals seemed to do, in order to win Belinda Stronach to their side and to try to do the same with Gurmant Grewal, the former Tory MP for the riding immediately to the south of Surrey North.
Having said all this, the writer suggested that perhaps on this particular issue, the Conservatives and Liberals should call the dogs off each other and agree that they have both learned something about best practices in wooing MPs to their respective sides.
For my part, I have some thoughts, not as a lawyer -- which I am not -- but as someone who tries to get the right words together to communicate the meaning intended by the speaker. There was need, in this case, for the words that would keep this issue legal, compassionate, on track and set up for the good of all concerned in Surrey North.
If all the bases are properly covered and all the caveats are in place, it would seem to me we can get on to something else. That is, if some of our political leaders become a little less than hell bent on getting their opposites into jail.
So, here is what this humble scribe believes Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley should have included in their conversation with Chuck Cadman on that fateful May 19, 2005.
Continue article >>
|
- We are not permitted by law to offer you anything as an inducement to change your vote. But we still believe we have an ethical obligation to ensure that your widow will be similarly compensated whether you die before or after leaving office.
- We can try to serve you in two ways, to accomplish that. We can make a payment on your insurance plan that will enable Dona to be taken care of in case of your death, no matter whether you vote with the Liberals or with the Conservatives; no matter whether the Liberal government falls as a result of your vote.
- Further, no matter which way you cast on this particular vote, you will be welcome back into the Conservative caucus. All caucus members are automatically the Conservative candidates in their riding in the next election, according to the party rules.
- We recognize that as things stand, Dona will only get the extra coverage, worth about $250,000, if you die while in office. And you have let some people know, confidentially, that you intend to vote with the Liberals, in part but not in whole, because of your consideration for Dona. That is commendable and we respect you for it. So does Stephen Harper.
- Just so you have it perfectly clearly, we want you back in the Conservative party and are prepared to commit to having you as Conservative candidate in Surrey North in the next election. We know your health is a question mark, but we recognize, from previous experience, that you may yet live longer than you might think.
- And just to make it clearer still, we still want you back in the Conservative party, even if you vote with the Liberals on this vote. You are a man of integrity and one who wants to care for his own and we respect you for that.
- To reiterate that clarity, we will act the same toward you whether you vote with the Liberals or the Conservatives on this vote. We are absolutely not trying to get you to change your vote. And we will sue anyone who suggests that we are.
* * *
Strike that last statement if you wish. It might be a trifle gratuitous. But it demonstrates how things begin to escalate when politicians start trying to suggest criminal action in a situation where one of the parties to a conversation is no longer alive.
Apart from that, I do feel a bit uncomfortable about putting words into the mouths of people who were in conversation with a dying man.
The major reason why I hope that Flanagan and Finley said all these things -- or words to those effects -- is that Conservatives need both to be and to be seen to be, as ethical and cleanly cut as possible. This is particularly true in light of the present Conservative government having passed a comprehensive and complex accountability act.
At the same time, the party must be seen to have acted with compassion toward its members who, for whatever reason, may have been wronged by a difficult political process.
Hopefully, Flanagan's and Finley's motivation was to communicate that they wanted Cadman back in the Conservative fold no matter how he voted -- and that one of the reasons they wanted him back was that they needed more people with his kind of integrity.
* * *
Lloyd Mackey is a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa and author of Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006). He can be reached at lmackey@canadianchristianity.com.
March 13/2008
|
