Cadman's Price

[August1991]

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has told independent MP Chuck Cadman he'll move forward with victims' rights initiatives after Cadman's vote saved the minority Liberal government from defeat last Thursday.

Vancouver Sun

I think this is going to be very controversial. To say that the Liberals play hard ball is a euphemism. I think now I understand Harper's comment of not becoming a monster to defeat a monster.

Since the stabbing death of his son in 1992, Cadman has been an outspoken advocate for victims' rights -- as a Reform party MP he was instrumental in amending the Criminal Code to give crime victims the right to make an oral impact statement before a court.

I can say honestly that I would never take advantage of someone in such a manner, and I am appalled that I am represented internationally by people who would. That is not my Canada.

No doubt the Liberals told Cadman, "We can deliver." To his credit, Harper made no such promise.

We have not only thieves in our government, we also have ambulance chasers.

[The Terrible Sweal]

This is going to be very controversial.

To say that the Liberals play hard ball is a euphemism.

I think now I understand Harper's comment of not becoming a monster to defeat a monster.

August, what sort of utter nonsense are you yattering about? From the Vancouver Sun:

the popular Surrey North MP, who has long argued that victims of violence should have a voice in the justice system, says there was no bargaining when he spoke with Cotler

[Riverwind]

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has told independent MP Chuck Cadman he'll move forward with victims' rights initiatives after Cadman's vote saved the minority Liberal government from defeat last Thursday.

Vancouver Sun

This is going to be very controversial.

To say that the Liberals play hard ball is a euphemism.

I think now I understand Harper's comment of not becoming a monster to defeat a monster.

Assume for once that there was no conspiracy, no bribing. Assume that Chuck Cadman is a man of his word and voted based only on his principals.

It is quite logical that the Liberals who are extremely greatful for his support, would move an issue that was on the back burner to the front of queue in a spirit of goodwll. Why is this a bad thing? Obviously it looks bad. But would you rather see Cadman see an issue that he cares deeply about be forgotten about for another 12 months until after a new parliment resumes just because it looks bad?

In any case, even if there was an unstated deal - this kind of legislative horse trading occurs all of the time in the US: you vote for me on this bill and I will vote for you an that bill. Americans consider it normal. For that matter, why is it any different than making a deal with the NDP on the budget? Chuck Cadman is a party of one.

[kimmy]

August, what sort of utter nonsense  are you yattering about?  From the Vancouver Sun:

the popular Surrey North MP, who has long argued that victims of violence should have a voice in the justice system, says there was no bargaining when he spoke with Cotler

And politicians always tell the truth.

Mr Cotler's sudden enthusiasm for Cadman's private members' initiative must be a coincidence. After all, governments back private members' initiatives all the time.

It is quite logical that the Liberals who are extremely greatful for his support, would move an issue that was on the back burner to the front of queue in a spirit of goodwll. Why is this a bad thing? Obviously it looks bad. But would you rather see Cadman see an issue that he cares deeply about be forgotten about for another 12 months until after a new parliment resumes just because it looks bad?

In any case, even if there was an unstated deal - this kind of legislative horse trading occurs all of the time in the US: you vote for me on this bill and I will vote for you an that bill. Americans consider it normal. For that matter, why is it any different than making a deal with the NDP on the budget? Chuck Cadman is a party of one.

This is more like it. And no, I don't think less of Cadman if he did push for concessions (as the NDP did successfully, or as Kilgour did unsuccessfully.) It's an issue that's important to him, he's worked for it for years, and he's got a chance to make it happen, of course he should go for it.

-k

[Newfie Canadian]

I'm not sure there was a deal for his vote, perhaps more like Sparhawk's goodwill scenario.

Optics are a funny thing. On the surface, it looks like th Liberal's bought his vote. Later on, after the image of the budget vote fades away, the Liberals will look like they cooperated to get some very important work done.

And, even if it was a deal, it's not like Cadman got something for himself, like an appointment to a plum post or anything. Some very important work for Canadians will have gotten done. It is just a little sad it takes so long to get something this imoprtant done.

[Guest eureka]

I don't think there was any deal, but uf there was, so what. As has been said, that is what minority government is about.

It is interesting to see that all the whining about deal making, including the elected whiners. is coming from those who most vociferously talk of proportional representation and the benefits of minority goverment. The NDP is quiter since receiving a benefit of minority position.

Beware of what you ask for

[cybercoma]

All I can say is at least he wasn't offered a cabinet position...

[PatM]

Politics has always been, and always be, all about "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

To insist that this is somehow dishonest is a dishonesty in itself. Go read the definitions of politics - this is what politics IS.

People who voted for Cadman voted for him to push his agenda in government. We EXPECT him to do what he can to get that agenda advanced. If that means making a deal for a vote, which is a normal function of representative governments, go for it.

Also, I live in Chuck's riding, I know he's telling the truth when he says his constituents wanted him to vote with the Liberals. So here he gets both his agenda advanced AND gets to do what the people he represents want. Can it get any better than that?

[Shakeyhands]

Hmmm.. pretty weak.

Nothing like Grewal lying his arse off, these two things aren't even remotely similar. Give us a break.

Ohhhh... and did you forget about this thread August?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...wtopic=3223&hl=

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

When asked about rumours he was offered by Conservatives an unopposed nomination in exchange for his vote on the budget bills, Cadman admitted they were true.

"The discussions did come up," he admitted on CTV's COUNTDOWN with Mike Duffy later Thursday night. "The talk did come up, yeah."

Cadman said he refused, however.

"That was the only offer on anything that I had from anybody," he added, rebuffing suggestions he made a deal to throw his support behind the Liberals.

"There were no offers on that table up to that point, on anything from anybody."

Shame on you.

[The Terrible Sweal]

To insist that this is somehow dishonest is a dishonesty in itself.

Exactly.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Ohhhh... and did you forget about this thread August?

You can't seriously be expecting consistency on the part of the right, can you?

Let me clarify for you:

If the Liberals are acused of making deals for votes, they are dishonest crooks.

If the Conservatives are accused of making deals for votes, they are doing God's work.

[August1991]

If the Liberals are acused of making deals for votes, they are dishonest crooks.

If the Conservatives are accused of making deals for votes, they are doing God's work.

No, I don't think Tory deals are good but Liberal deals are bad.

And the issue here is not whether legislation to protect victim's rights is worthy or not. (To be honest, I haven't seen Cadman's or Cotler's proposal so I can't judge. I do wonder why it took the Liberal about 10 years to do something about this.)

What is the issue?

First, Harper offered his support so that Cadman could run unopposed for the Tory nomination in his riding. In addition, Harper offered to provide Cadman with central party funds. I do not think these offers can be considered to be "bribes" or even making "deals". (Remember what Martin did to Copps?)

Second, if you listen to the Grewal tape, you will hear Murphy describing a way to offer something without making an explicit deal. I don't know if anybody on this board has ever paid a bribe. I have. One of the classic lines is to say "I would be grateful if you would... " So, you tell me, was there a Liberal deal with Cadman?

Third, we have a government of ambulance chasers. They have the guile to go to someone and take advantage of a person's weakness for their own gain. I am reminded of the jury studies conducted in the US. I bet the Liberals systematically looked at MPs to find weak points they could play on.

Fourth, government power is badly exerciced in arbitrary fashion. There are 308 MPs, each with a personal agenda and a personal preference for legislation. It happened to be Chuck Cadman's lucky day. I don't think that government by lottery is good.

IMV, it is to his credit that Harper didn't get involved in a political bidding war.

-----

The situation with Cadman is only one aspect of what amounts to the exposure of the ugly underbelly of Liberal power politics. The Liberal Party used to wave the Canadian flag and say that a Canada under the Liberal banner is open, generous, caring, idealistic, principled - an honest protector of the realm.

I have compared before Martin's handling of this scandal and Nixon's handling of Watergate. There were many people in the US at the time who defended Nixon by saying that, "It's just politics as usual. And anyway, this guy opened the door to China, got us out of Vietnam, started detente." Well, there were some Americans such as Archibald Cox and Sam Ervin who stood up to Nixon.

I sincerely think no good will come from the kind of politics the Liberals are playing.

[PatM]

No, I don't think Tory deals are good but Liberal deals are bad.

<SNIP>

I sincerely think no good will come from the kind of politics the Liberals are playing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Translation - Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, pay attention to the people I point at.

[August1991]

No, I don't think Tory deals are good but Liberal deals are bad.

<SNIP>

I sincerely think no good will come from the kind of politics the Liberals are playing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Translation - Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, pay attention to the people I point at.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, for heaven's sakes. Let me be more explicit.

Just because a deal is Liberal or Tory, by that fact alone, I would not characterize it as good or bad. A priori, I would not consider a Liberal deal as bad and a Tory deal as good.

I think the specific deals the Liberal Party put together this past week were bad and no good will come of them.

Now, is that clear enough?