Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

The concept that political parties’ own MPs and MLAs, elected under their banner, is abhorrent and unacceptable -- are political parties above the law

We need a national inquiry into whether political parties in the execution of their affairs are in violation of Sections 119 to 121 of the Criminal Code of Canada. 

Political parties, federal and provincial routinely tell elected members what party policies they shall promote and support ... they offer ministerial (and critic) positions on the basis that the appointed person shall support the party in all things ... and they require elected members to vote in accordance with party instructions.

Those elected officials who are not compliant with party instructions can be demoted and/ or the party can expel elected members for a variety of reasons without giving the member a fair hearing before a neutral panel.

Political parties also will not to allow elected members to speak freely on issues before parliament or the legislature.

All of this is an infringement on an elected member’s ability to represent the people in the electoral district that elected that person to office and in many cases infringes on the elected member’s rights and freedoms under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government did not pressure Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould in the SNC-Lavalin affair; a political appointee (Clerk of the Privy Council) and PMO employee (PM’s Principle Secretary) did -- and are culpable. They are not shielded from the Criminal Code.

The government did not demote Jody Wilson-Raybould -- the Liberal party did.

The government did not kick Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpot out of the liberal party.

If we want elected representatives to carry the voices of electors and residents in our parliament and legislatures, we have to curtail the enormous powers political partied wield over the people we elect. The best way to do that is to require them to comply with the Criminal Code provisions set out below.

Political parties disallow some potential candidates for fear they may be controversial, or may not follow party rules, and thus harm the party brand.

This is the madness of political correctness and censorship of dissenting opinion. If the party members in a constituency select a candidate who is controversial, they are making a statement that should bot be stifled, 
  

The concept that political parties’ own MPs and MLAs, elected under their banner, is abhorrent and unacceptable. Those elected representatives should speak for the people, not for the party.  


John Feldsted
Political Commentator, Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba


    
******************************************
Corruption and Disobedience 

Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
119 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who:

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be
done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

Consent of Attorney General

(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.

Bribery of officers

120 Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who:

(a) being a justice, police commissioner, peace officer, public officer or officer of a juvenile court, or being employed in the administration of criminal law, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment with intent
   (i) to interfere with the administration of justice,
   (ii) to procure or facilitate the commission of an offence, or
   (iii) to protect from detection or punishment a person who has committed or who intends to commit an offence; or

(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment with intent that the person should do anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i), (ii) or (iii).

121 (1) Every one commits an offence who:

(a) directly or indirectly
   (i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or
   (ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person, a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with
   (iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or
   (iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow, whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

(b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;

(c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;

(d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with
   (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or
   (ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office;
  
(e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of the government or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with
   (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or
   (ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or

(f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government,
   (i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another person who has made a tender, to a member of that person’s family or to another person for the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or
   (ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from another person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their own tender.

Contractor subscribing to election fund

(2) Every one commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government, or as a term of any such contract, whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes or gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration
  
(a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidates to Parliament or the legislature of a province; or
  
(b) with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in Parliament or the legislature of a province.

Punishment

(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

RCMP gag order comes after BC NDP catch heat for diverted safe supply (Northern Beat)

In the wake of several high-profile police drug seizures of suspected safer supply that put the BC NDP government on the defensive last month, BC RCMP “E” division issued a gag order on detachments, directing them to run all communications on “hot button” public safety issues through headquarters in the lead-up to the provincial election. “It is very clear we are in a pre-election time period and the topic of ‘public safety’ is very much an issue that governments and voters are discussing,” writes a senior RCMP communications official in an email dated Mar. 11 in what appears to have gone out to all BC RCMP detachments . . . . CLICK HERE for the full story

KRUGELL: BC NDP turns its attention from BC United to BC Conservatives

The BC NDP turning its attention, from BC United, to BC Conservatives was reported over the weekend from a variety of sources. It is the result of the surge in the BC Conservative's polling numbers and the subsequent collapse of BC United. The NDP has largely ignored the BC Conservatives, instead they opt to talk about issues directly or attack their old foes BC United. Practical politics says that parties closer to the centre tend to ultimately prevail over the long haul. They do wane but often make comebacks. A good example is the federal Liberals going from third party to government in 2015. Centrism has a lot of appeal on voting day. The NDP shifting its fire from United to Conservative is a reflection of reality. BC United did buy advertising online and radio over the last few months. Did that shift the polls back to them? Nope. The reality is today, the BC Conservatives are the party of the Opposition, and day by day the Conservatives are looking like a party not ready to fig

Baldrey: 2024 meets 1991? How B.C. election history could repeat itself (Times Colonist)

NOTE ... not the original image from Keith Baldrey's op/ed 1991 BC general election -- Wikipedia   A veteran NDP cabinet minister stopped me in the legislature hallway last week and revealed what he thinks is the biggest vulnerability facing his government in the fall provincial election. It’s not housing, health care, affordability or any of the other hot button issues identified by pollsters. "I think we are way too complacent,” he told me. “Too many people on our side think winning elections are easy.” He referenced the 1991 election campaign as something that could repeat itself. What was supposed to be an easy NDP victory then almost turned into an upset win for the fledgling BC Liberal Party. Indeed, the parallels between that campaign and the coming fall contest are striking ... CLICK HERE for the full story

Labels

Show more