Canpol: Election Imminent?

[St Leo]

Proportional Representation -- All of the taste, none of the bad stuff.

[notyoueither]

Would you say that after a PC, Reform, Green coalition ruled for 8 years?

I ask because PR would mean the divorce of the current Conservatives.

I shudder to think how many pieces the Liberals might break into.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Unless of course, does Parrish fancy a course of revenge?

Nope. She will be back in caucus as her payback for supporting Martin. Before the next general election - bet on it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I guess not afterall. I'm not sure what happened to my count, but an extra Liberal along with Stronach checks Kilgour and Cadman. Dead even with both Western independents voting against the govt

Not true. The speaker doesn't vote except in ties, so the BQ + Tories + Cadman + Kilgour = 154, whereas (Grits-1) + NDP + "Bush is a moron" = 153

If Cadman and Kilgour both vote against gov't then it falls.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Would you say that after a PC, Reform, Green coalition ruled for 8 years?

I ask because PR would mean the divorce of the current Conservatives.

I shudder to think how many pieces the Liberals might break into.

Brian:
Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg:
**** off!
Brian:
What?
Reg:
Judean People's Front? We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front? Cawk.
Francis:
****ers.
Brian:
Can I... join your group?
Reg:
No. Piss off.
Brian:
I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
People's Front of Judea:
Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
Reg:
Schtum.
Judith:
Are you sure?
Brian:
Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
Reg:
Listen. If you really wanted to join the PFJ, you'd have to really hate the Romans.
Brian:
I do!
Reg:
Oh, yeah? How much?
Brian:
A lot!
Reg:
Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the ****ing Judean People's Front.
PFJ:
Yeah...
Judith:
Splitters.
PFJ:
Splitters...
Francis:
And the Judean Popular People's Front.
PFJ::
Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
Loretta:
And the People's Front of Judea.
PFJ::
Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
Reg:
What?
Loretta:
The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
Reg:
We're the People's Front of Judea!
Loretta:
Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
Reg:
People's Front! C-huh.
Francis:
Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
Reg:
He's over there.
PFJ::
Splitter!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not true. The speaker doesn't vote except in ties, so the BQ + Tories + Cadman + Kilgour = 154, whereas (Grits-1) + NDP + "Bush is a moron" = 153

If Cadman and Kilgour both vote against gov't then it falls.

Damn. You're right that I was right the first time. I pulled a brain fart and neglected to deduct the speaker from the new Lib total.

[notyoueither]

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec119.html

Criminal Code
PART IV OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW AND JUSTICE
Corruption and Disobedience

119. (1) Every one who

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly

(i) accepts or obtains,

(ii) agrees to accept, or

(iii) attempts to obtain,

any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity, or

(b) gives or offers, corruptly, to a person mentioned in paragraph (a) any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Does this apply to either the Grewal or Stronach situation? I wonder if Inky will talk to the RCMP.

[KrazyHorse]

Don't be silly.

[notyoueither]

How am I being silly?

[notyoueither]

Would saying to Grewal that discussions about a posting (office, place or employment ) could be held after he abstained from a vote on a bill in the Commons (anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity) be a crime?

Would him seeking out such offers be a crime?

This is anything but silly. This is corruption of our system of government at the most basic level.

[KrazyHorse]

Cabinet minister is a political position. Offering a political position for a political favour is not corruption.

If Martin were to have made Stronach head of Canada Post in return for her vote in Parliament then you would have a case.

[KrazyHorse]

Otherwise you might as well claim corruption if the PM only offered Cabinet positions to Liberals...

[notyoueither]

When did Grewal get into cabinet?

Stronach's situation only looks bad because people suspect.

Grewal's is a very serious situation because the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister is on tape dispensing patronage in return for votes in the Commons, a patently illegal act.

[notyoueither]

But maybe our MPs should be free to accept envelopes stuffed with cash for a vote this way or that on some bill or other.

Maybe when your corporation is involved in litigation, you should be free to offer the judge a position on the board of directors if the case turns out to your satisfaction.

Now, take the small leap to the government using its powers of patronage to influence individual MPs in the opposition benches in individual votes on specific bills. You do not see a problem?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Cabinet minister is a political position. Offering a political position for a political favour is not corruption.

If Martin were to have made Stronach head of Canada Post in return for her vote in Parliament then you would have a case.

re Stronach, nobody can prove that she was put in cabinet in return for crossing the floor (that would be illegal; an appointment for an act in her 'official capacity' as an MP). It is always possible that Martin feels that Belinda, after less than 12 months in Parliament, is more qualified that any Liberal back bencher to fill the seat in cabinet. Or, it is possible that he simply enjoys her conversation style and therefore brought her to the table. The possibilities abound, but then so do the suspicions. Since neither of the kissers can be expected to tell, we are all left to marvel at the meteoric rise of a founder of the Conservative Party of Canada in Liberal estimations.

But then there is Grewal and 'the tapes'. That's a fish of a decidedly more public stench. The PMO is caught with its hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, and having failed to seal the evidence it is being spilled all over the dock in the broad daylight, all the better to stink the place up.

The fact that politicians have done these things and gotten away with it in the past is besides the point. The fact is that influencing a public official with inducements is illegal, it always has been, and now the Liberals have been caught in the act. Boo hoo.