Canpol: Election Imminent?

[KrazyHorse]

Your reading of the Criminal Code is obviously overbroad and would be laughed out of a courtroom on its face.

Otherwise the very concept of a coalition government (formal coalition, that is) can be tossed out the window.

What else would you call offering cabinet posts to the leadership of an opposing party in order to get that party's support in commons?

[Jon Miller]

Jerry Jerry!

JM

[Jon Miller]

it seems like the Canucks are trying to give the Brits a run for the money..

JM

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Your reading of the Criminal Code is obviously overbroad and would be laughed out of a courtroom on its face.

Otherwise the very concept of a coalition government (formal coalition, that is) can be tossed out the window.

What else would you call offering cabinet posts to the leadership of an opposing party in order to get that party's support in commons?

Sigh.

Making a coalition to govern is quite a bit different from trying to influence a single vote by a single MP through the use of inducements.

The former is Parliamentary norm, the later is corruption of a public official.

[notyoueither]

Their stupidity, and lack of respect for Parliament, knows no bounds.

Had Murphy said to Grewal, 'come on over, we always knew you had the right stuff. Help us govern the country from your new seat in cabinet' there would have been no offence.

Instead, they focused the conversation on that one vote, and things that might happen a few weeks later if the vote went their way.

The hypothetical conversation has no problem with the law. The real conversation most certainly does.

[KrazyHorse]

There's no difference whatsoever.

MPs are directly accountable to the Canadian people. Their actions in Parliament in exchange for appointments which are dependent on their ability to remain MPs are matters on which their constituents must have the final say. It's not a matter for the courts and the police, but one for the electorate.

Appointment to a post such as the head of Via Rail or ambassador to France over which the Canadian people cannot exercise such direct control (or the offering of a sum of money, or any other such action) is corruption.

You're the one drawing the fine lines here, NYE. It's okay to do it to members of your own party or for entire other parties, but not for individual MPs? I thought you were the one who was all for greater importance of the individual MP in parliament...

[notyoueither]

I am. I am also very much against the ability of a government to prolong its putrid rule through the use of patronage towards opposition MPs.

And yes, an expicit quid pro quo for a vote on a single bill is against the law. That's what the Criminal Code says.

[notyoueither]

You ask a judge, how would you rule in this type of case? She answers, you confirm her.

No problem.

You ask a judge, how will you vote on my brother-in-laws case that's before you right now? She tells you to get stuffed. You use your position on a committee to stall her appointment to the SCoC.

You just broke the law, Jack.

[notyoueither]

It might be telling that corruption of judges and MPs is handled in the same section.

You think that influencing a judge in a specific case should be OK under some circumstances?

[notyoueither]

Mr. Judge, don't you consider xyz to be a Charter issue? He answers. He gets appointed, or not.

Fair ball.

Mr. Judge, don't you think you really should find xyz to be a Charter issue in this case you are hearing?

*Bzzzt* Go directly to jail, or at the very least resign from the government.

[notyoueither]

Mr. MP, don't you find that you agree with us on all these issues? Why not come over here and support us from a cabinet post?

Mr. MP, do you want a job of some sort three weeks from now? Vote yeah on Thursday, and the fix is in. *wink, wink*

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
it seems like the Canucks are trying to give the Brits a run for the money..

JM

Under no circumstances should you permit Gordon Brown to become Prime Minister. Nothing good will come of it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Latest update:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/National/

You're right. The House of Cards is up in the air again.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Taping a conversation is not in the least bit illegal

Actually, taping a private conversation is illegal under Canadian Criminal Code 184.

The law allows tape recording of a conversation under specified circumstances. One of which is that the person making the tape recording must get the consent of the other person before the conversation begins.

[Tingkai]

So we have the Liberals acting unethically, the Conservatives acting unethically.

Vote NDP.