In golf, it is against the rules to give "advice" (read counsel). While it is permissable to state to your opponent "Boy, I hit a great 6-iron there", it is against the rules to state "I hit a 6-iron". Is this a similar situation, where the term "advice" is being played upon?

No I think it would take a wee bit more than that. Lots of "gowan, do it, do it".

"Inducement" might be a special plea by Murphy and Dosanjh (leading to type of stay of proceedings), but not an excuse. Sort of like "guilty but with an explanation". It probably doesn't apply as a defence here (as Grewal is not an "official" government agent or actor), in any event, and it presupposes that Grewal is innocent. If Grewal is guilty of an "corrupt attempt", then I agree that the other Liberal lads are co-conspirators or parties (aiders and abettors) in furthering the attempt.

But there is no legal problem in Grewal being believed and found innocent of "corrupt" intentions in his approach to the Liberals, and Murphy and Dosanjh being found guilty not merely as parties to Grewal's offence, but as principals in separate offences of "corrupt offering" based on facts established after Grewal's approach to them. Potentially, even Martin could be charged if it was proven that Murphy and Dosanjh were acting as his agents in a corrupt offer to Grewal.

What is disturbing is that no doubt Stronach had the same type of conversation with Martin, through her "agent" David Peterson. One of the issues to be discussed is whether the "crossing the floor" is a complete absolution of "offers" made as inducements to switch parties, and accordingly, the member's vote on a certain issue. Certainly none of us would have a problem in seeing it as "corrupt offer" if Stronach stayed as Conservative, voted with the Liberals, and THEN crossed the floor to her cabinet position as a quid pro quo.

It all boils down to what is "corrupt". When you start talking about securing a Member's "absention" from voting with "plausible deniablility" , and then "crossing the floor" or accepting an appoint, that, to my mind, goes beyond an error in judgement: that is fostering corruption.

All Murphy and Dosanjh had to say was "No - no promises, no offers - cross the floor if you think it is the right thing to do. Once you are in the fold then talk to the Prime Minister".

Nobody looks good in this matter. The Tories know that. It smears everyone, but, I submit Murphy and Dosanjh, Martin and the Liberals will (and should) wear it more because it was within their complete power to stop this discussion with Grewal. To them it was just "politics" as usual and shows (to be generous) at the very least, serious errors in judgement and ethics, effected by overwhelming desperation.

I have no idea how anyone can believe the person throwing a ball is playing catch but the person receiving the ball is not playing catch.<p>Remember "intent" is different from "motive" in criminal law in the sense of proving the offence. "Motive" as we know from <i>Law & Order</i> on TV is important in identifying suspects but is not an element of the offense...usually. But there is that twist of the word "corruptly". Was it wrong for the Liberals to seek an MP to walk across the floor as has been done about 50 times in our nation's history? Is disloyalty "corrupt"? No. I think there has to be an aspect of personal advantage to trigger that label and the topic of the dropping of the pre-existing ethics inquiry against the MP may be the thing - although that was only one passing reference, never a fixed plan. If it was not crossing the floor but leaving the House to go to the Senate or an ambassadorship plus dropping the previous ethics review, I think that is closer. But in any of those situations, both the Tories and the Grits are implicated. I see no scenario where the MP and the higher oath is not implicated despite all the best wishes of CPC hardcore believers.

When I refer to "inducement" above, read "entrapment".

Except, of course, (to use your analogy, Al) Grewal never "caught the ball" that was thrown - and if it is believed that he merely wanted to see if the ball would be thrown, then the "throwers" only have the problem.

What is missing in your response Al, is reference of the context in which this conversation took place. The Liberals wanted Grewal's specific vote (or lack thereof)on the budget. We can talk about disloyalty not being evidence of corruption, in the abstract. Of course, disloyalty is not in of itself "corrupt". But securing disloyalty from a Member of Parliament on a specific issue with the clear suggesting that something could be done by way of a reward, well...

1) We do not know that Grewal did not throw the ball. We may or may not believe that or suspect it but that will not result in the laying of a charge;<p>2) Pay close attention to the difference in specifics of the reward or benefit required for charges under 119 as opposed to 124 or 125. For the charges to stick in relation to a MP, the specific benefit must fit the list and there must be "corruption" which is a legal term not just being a bad moral actor;<p>3) If his defence is he was playing secret spy (without party authorization) to "trap" the Liberal in a crime, he is inducing that activity which is criminal and I think that is counselling the crime...as long as what the Liberal did was a crime. I am not convinced what the Liberal did was a crime but in terms of how the structure of the law works, counselling a crime is counselling a crime and it does not matter what the motive was in relation to the counselling. That is Grewal's problem for playing secret agent man...if that is what he was doing. Seems unlikely to me, too.

I'll be able to make a decision when 1) the entire tape is released and 2) an third party translates it.

Don't forget that there's a difference between saying "If you apply for a job with our company, your skills and abilities will naturally lead us to place you in a management position" and "If you shoot your wife, we'll give you $10,000."

There are several possible scenarios: Grewal was being coy - "I might cross the floor, yah?"; Martin's team was recognizing that Grewal has useful skills that might gain him prominence in the Liberal party; Martin's team was inducing Grewal to leave by offering him bribes; Grewal was coldly entrapping Team Martin; the offer wasn't big enough and Grewal decided to play rough; Grewal outright said he'd cross the floor and was negotiating what he and his wife were worth to the party. The RCMP will decide what sceraio was most likely. The tapes, apparently, have "technical problems," so who knows.

I suspect that both sides are playing dirty pool; everybody's citing the Stronach affair, but as runner-up to leader of the Conservative Party and a prominent CEO she clearly has formidable skills that are worth a cabinet appointment. The test is: would she have gotten it if she'd been a Lib all along?

This whole thing illustrates that there's less difference between the two sides than we'd like to think.

So. How about that NDP?

Al points out' "..there must be "corruption" which is a legal term not just being a bad moral actor...".

"Corruptly" refers to an act done mala fides, designed wholly or partially for the purpose of bringing about the effect forbidden by the section: R v. Brown (1956) 116 CCC 287 (Ont. CA)

Well, mala fides, as we know, means "in bad faith" and requires an examination of motives, which therefore makes motive an element of the offence ie. is he "a bad moral actor"!

If Grewal was not acting mala fides, and did not intend to "sell" his vote (or lack thereof), but Murphy and Dosanjh did believe that he would and wished to assist him in that regard, well, YIKES! these Liberal boys have got some serious trouble.

No. If Grewal was counselling the Liberals to induce them to act on their bad movtives by holding himself out falsely as someone who would accept office from them, that is a criminal act which does not need be done "corruptly". His intention to do that is obvious from his meeting on, what, 16 May, with Harper - there was some degree of planning going on in at least Grewal's head. There may have been a scheme to entrap which, if proven on the facts, is as much an act sanctioned by criminal law as what is alleged to have been done by the Liberals.<p>Good job snabbing that case reference BTW. Is it in relation to a politician? Is it on line so that you can link? I would have thought it means "in bad faith for personal gain" or something like that.

Here is a 1992 SCC case on the meaning of corruptly in the CCC even if in relation to a different section than the predecessor to s.119:<blockquote> The interpretation of the word "corruptly" must take place within the context of s. 426 itself. It is a trite rule of statutory interpretation that every word in the statute must be given a meaning. It would be superfluous to include "corruptly" in the section if the offence were complete upon the taking of the benefit in the circumstances described by the section. The word must add something to the offence. In my view, corruptly, as used in the section, designates secrecy as the corrupting element of the offence. It is the failure to disclose that makes it impossible for the principal to determine whether to act upon the advice of the agent or accept the actions of the agent. It is the non-disclosure which makes the receipt of the commission or reward corrupt. The word corruptly, in this context, adds the element of non-disclosure to the actus reus of the offence.</blockquote>So corruption must be defined in relation to s.119. As it only refers to a judge, an MP or an MPP/MLA/MHA, there must be a relationship between "corruptly" and those special high offices. It is not general falsity but something which is a particular falsity in relation to these positions.

Al says: "If Grewal was counselling the Liberals to induce them to act on their bad movtives by holding himself out falsely as someone who would accept office from them, that is a criminal act which does not need be done "corruptly"."

Grewal is not guilty of some criminal act simply because he exposed the predisposition of some other person to corrupt behavior.

"Counselling" requires both mens rea and actus reus. If a trier of fact accepts Grewal's position that from the outset he never intended to accept any position etc. in exchange for his vote or abstension, and that he just wanted to see how far the Liberals would go, then he must be acquitted of "counselling" Murphy and Dosanjh, as he lacked the requisite mens rea. If however, he had the requisite mens rea to "sell" his vote (or his abstension), then simply by making the "offer" on approach to the Liberals he would be guilty of the offence; and by the discussions which followed thereafter, he would also be guilty of counselling Murphy and Dosanjh to commit an offence under s. 199(1)(b). Grewal's guilt, of course, would not absolve Murphy and Dosanjh.

In Murphy and Dosanjh's case, once they thought Grewal was "for real", they have a serious problem in continuing their clandestine discussions with him and it can be argued that, one or both, in turn, "counselled" Grewal on how to commit the offence ie. with "plausible deniability" (Murphy's really in the soup on this one), and that they "offered" him some "valuable consideration" etc.

It is clear that Murphy and Dosanjh had a positive duty to stop the discussions. Since they were in the position to make the offer, or stop the discussions, practically they will be held to a higher standard. Their tact now is to argue that any discussions fell below the definition of an "offer". Not a happy position to be in.

I think you are close but if Grewal intendeed to "trick" the Liberals into offering an office, no amount of "I never would have taken it" and finger crossing changes the effect of his actions. That is the difference between motive and intention. He intends to counsel the Liberals into doing the bad thing of offering even though his motive is explicable to himself and CPC supporters. It is irrelevant that he never "intended" to accept the offer for a charge under 22, though that might avoid a charge under 119.<p>Morally and perhaps legally, everyone had a positive duty to not do any of this, if "this" was lobbying an MP to cross the floor which went too far and turned into bargaining for an office in return for something. You cannot separate the parties to the dance anymore than one can tango.