The Andrew Coyne Challenge

In a complaint I made about politicians and Canadians not understanding Part IV of the Criminal Code on his blog, Andrew Coyne has offered 15 minutes of fame to the first blogger to come up with a relevant provision from the Criminal Code of Canada (C.C.C) to best exemplify the actions of the Liberal Party dangling the proverbial carrot in front of the noses of Conservative MP's.

Here is my contribution, it's my thought that all the provisions offered so far are probably relevant in some form or another. I think s. 121 in Part IV of the C.C.C may be more relevant and suitable for the question asked. But have a look for yourself.

Part IV is titled the Administration of Law and Justice. It's better to have a copy of Martin's Criminal Code, 2005 to read up on this section although an earlier version will do. In the definitions section 118 it clarifies what constitutes an "official" and what is an "office". As any judge's decision, clauses in legislation or regulations, the commentary in the book should be read thoroughly.

In the Synopsis on page 236 of Martin's C.C.C states: "Secton 121 creates a number of frauds upon the government and is aimed, in part, at what is known as 'influence peddling'. As with ss. 119 and 120, offenses are created to catch both the government officials (or a family member of such officials) and the person offering the bribe.

Section 121 (1)(a), which deals specifically with influence peddling, catches a wide range of activities, including offers of 'loans or benefits offered' for the 'purpose' of 'obtaining an advantage' in government business or benefits which the government may confer. There is no requirement that the official be actually able to be of assistance to bring about the result sought to be obtained. As with most offenses created by this section, it is broad enough to encompass situations in which the intended recipient of the benefit is a 'family member' of the government official.

Section 121 (1)(b) creates an offense to the 'person who confers' an advantage or 'benefit' upon an employee or an official of the government, by a 'person who has any kind of dealings with the government'. The person offering the benefit must do so with the 'consent in writing' of the head of the branch of government, with which he deals, to do so. The accused must prove the existence of such consent.

Section 121 (1) (c) creates a companion offense to the previous paragraph, and is aimed at the 'employee' or official who 'recieves the reward' or benefit. The broad scope of this paragraph extends to benefits to 'family members' of the accused official. As with the previous paragraph, the defence of consent by senior officials is provided and the onus is on the accused to demonstrate their consent.

Section 121 (1) (d) and (e) create companion offences aimed at the 'person demanding and the person accepting the reward' and the person offering the reward for the same 'purposes' as in subse. (1)(a) or to obtain the 'appointment of any person to an office'. This offense requires the 'intention' on the part of the person agreeing to accept the benefit of influencing, or pretending to do so, a minister or other employee of the government. The offense requires more than merely seeking access to governmental officials; the gravamen of the offense is attempting to 'influence decisions'.

Section 121 (1)(f) is aimed at the attempted 'influencing of government tendering processes'. This paragraph creates offences for both sides of this type of corrupt deal-making. The key aspect of this offense is to offer or accept, the reward, advantage and so on, for the 'purpose' of having 'competing tenders withdrawn' from consideration.

Subsection (2) deals with with attempts to curtail improper ties between those who have or seek to obtain government contracts and those who seek (or wish to retain) elected office in the federal or provincial legislatures. The subsection is aimed at the intention to promote one or more candidate or to influence such elections to attain or retain government contracts. This offense prohibits 'valuable consideration' being given, or promised, for such purpose directly or indirectly. the maximum punishment for the breach of this section is, by virtue of subsec. (3), five years imprisonment."

Martin's C.C.C in the commentary of s. 121 it describes in the annotations cases and more explanations as such on page 237 "The application of this subsection is not confined to a person who holds office or has responsibility for the administration of law or justice but is also aimed at a person who exercises legislative functions and thus the offence may be committed by an appointed member of the Legislative Council of Quebec. R v. Martineau, [1996] S.C.R. 103, [1966] 4 C.C.C. 327"

That's citation is s. 327 of the Criminal Code of Canada = C.C.C
I belive S.C.R = Supreme Court Ruling number 103 ?
The case is called Regina [Latin for "Queen" or the Crown versus Martineau]

Also on page 237 of Martin's C.C.C ""Corruption" is not a required element of the 'actus reus' or the 'mens rea'. There is no requirement that the Crown prove that a benefit was conferred because of a person's position and, correspondingly, that the recipient knew that it was given because of his or her employement status."

The following legal definitions are described in Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, 2003:

Actus Reus = the criminal act, the guilty act or deed of crime. "Every criminal offense has two elements, the physical actus reus and the mental mens rea. The actus reus is the actual conduct of the accused that falls within the definition of the act proscribed."

Mens Rea = guilty mind, a culpable state of mind. "Mens rea indicates the mental element of intent for the commission of a criminal act. Mens rea encompasses several criminal states of mind: intention, knowledge, recklessness, willful blindness, fraudulence, and malice".

It's always a fun adventure to meander over to your local law library within a University and have a looksee through this book or one similar to it. If there is no University, the local court house usually has a law library for access to legal information for the public. If not, try your local police station, they should always have a copy on hand, although it may not be the latest version. If not, try Carswell