All I learned in Law school was the law and most of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

Chuck Cadman (R- Victim's Rights, CA - Father of Sons, and Ind. - Screw you Conservatives) was an honourable and excellent person. I was lucky enough to meet him - and speak to him many times. He was a genuine and sincere advocate for issues that actually matter to real people. Parliament misses him and his jeans.

Anyone who knows a wit about politics must know that offering him anything to influence his vote isn't going to get you very far.

Nobody (at least nobody who might charged under the Criminal Code) really knows what was/not said. I honestly believe the Prime Minister (C - Top Down) when he says that they were going to offer him something - but he didn't know exactly what. If he didn't know, he would never have to deny it later and frankly, it is possible the the people in question didn't tell him what they were actually up to. They were given a job to get done- they weren't told how to do it.

Shit like that happens all the time in other democracies. It sucks. The fact that it allegedly happened in Canada doesn't surprise me. If true, I think it is an grotesque example of a lot of "three steps" that have been happening for a long time by all governments. I explain three steps below.

Don't worry, by the end of this, everyone will find a way to blame it on lobbyists in Ottawa.

As for the law - it is actually pretty complicated in how it incorporates section by reference - but follow along with me:

Interpretation:

"official" means a person who
(a) holds an office, or
(b) is appointed or elected to discharge a public duty;

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.

So, define corruptly exactly...are political deals corruption? You join my party, I will make you a Cabinet Minister. The raise probably helped Brison a little bit, but not Belinda.

But that isn't the end of it, depending on what you define as Government Business. Personally, I think the budget constitutes Government Business.

1) Every one commits an offence who:

(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)

Section 121(a) (iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government,

Ok. So now that we know what law could have been broken - lets' talk about whether or not it can be proved to the satisfaction of a judge.

Yes. People who say "it is all hearsay" are IDIOTS who don't understand what hearsay means. Almost ALL evidence is, in some form or another. hearsay - a witness account is not as good as a videotape - but both are a recreation of what actually happened to assist a finder of fact in determining if an offence occurred. It is probed for believability by a cross-examiner. What the hearsay rules are designed to establish what should be admitted and what should not be. They factor in whether or not it is unfair to the person on trial because they can't effectively cross-examine it relative to the importance of the evidence in their conviction. The cross-examination still happens, it is of the person who heard the statement - not for its actual truth.

Hearsay evidence is admitted ALL THE TIME! Like the terms of contract under the Parole Evidence Rule. We are more concerned when the jeopardy in question is criminal because the result of an error is far more serious.

There is a rule in law that when available the best evidence should always be used. If a person is a witness, we cross examine them rather than someone who heard them say they saw something.

Quite literally, hearsay means "Heard 'em say." There are numerous exceptions to "hearsay" rules - but the SCC test for whether or not a statement should be admitted is ostensibly:

a) is the statement reliable?

b) is it necessary to prove the issue in question?

Obviously, here we need the statement to prove the issue at bar because- he was the one being bribed. Reliability has a lot of ways to be ascertained and criticized. The words of a dying man to his wife about something that someone else tried to get him to do is far more reliable than someone hearing that John McCain might have been nailing a Lobbyist in 2001. The probative value of the statement in question is improved by the fact that three different people are telling the same story- and at least TWO of those people are making what is known as a "statement against interest" by repeating it

A statement against interest is when someone says something that is not in their best interest. Chuck Cadman did not benefit from making the allegation about the Conservatives - but understandably- if he said it to me - I would think he was just bitter. But his wife??Who, btw, is also making a statement against her own interest by repeating the claim of his husband. She is running for the Conservatives in her husband's riding! "Vote for me," and I will clean up the corruption in the party that tried to bribe my husband!"

That will not play well. And who knows what ill may befall her from the party - knowing Uncle Steve, he very well drop her like a stone unless she recants quickly. And there is no "marital privilege" that can be invoked unless Diane (C- gotta wear shades) knows something too. It's Chuck's privilege - not the accused.

His daughter is also making a statement against interest. She is VERY aware that this bullshit detracts from her father's legacy and deflects attention from the charity she is running in his name. Both of them have an interest in seeing this go away forever.Ultimately, what can be proved in a court of law is whether or not the statement occurred- and after that, if it should be offered as "proof of its own truth" (Wigmore).

The reporter is selling a lot of books - so his motivation is at least somewhat questionable - but I believe him. I wish he taped Chuck saying it. He didn't.

But here is the best part. I don't care. I also don't think this should be a political issue for anyone to explore. I don't think the current Prime Minister has done anything wrong. I think two operatives may have crossed the line. Call the cops. What I really want to know is what adjuster was going to write that ridiculous policy and what chunk of a future federal contract was he going to get in exchange? Because then it evolves into "conspiracy to commit" and subsequently, conspiracy to fix a tender and, plainly, corruption of a public process. Nicely covered under the FAA, btw.

This is what I would like to call a "three step." You do something for me, someone I know will do something for you. That person will get his/her end made up later. Maybe by underwriting a life insurance policy for one of the Government's unions, perhaps. We all know that isn't really all that lucrative.

It happens all the time in politics at nominations and Cabinet Selection and bid formation and RIAS assessments. The way our "whip" system works, it very rarely involves actual votes in the House of Commons. It also rarely involves people who don't themselves have a financial interest in the outcome. If anything, this was "philosophical bribery" - but the Criminal Code doesn't split that particular hair - it only deals with what was offered to get the vote- not why the vote mattered to the people making the offer.

It is too bad Chuck Cadman didn't call the cops right away. Maybe we should amend the section to have the following included:

119 (c) Officials who receive an offer mentioned in subsection (a) or (b) have a positive obligation to inform the Attorney General for Canada.

I know that such a clause would be almost completely unenforceable because it is PREDICATED on hearsay type evidence unless someone is dumb enough to write it down. But, who can we trust if not our elected officials as an exception to the rules of hearsay? Doctors have a positive obligation to report (for example) child abuse- the harm being prevented is far more real and evident than any purported bribery.

Imagine what result that would have had on the front pages during the subsequent months as the Liberal Government was under siege for its record on corruption. Something tells me that the authors of the FAA would have been a little less...well, just a little less.