Trudeau in Trouble over Trips

[Ritafee]

I do agree with the "one standard for Trudeau, another for all the rest" suggestion.

That seems to be the suggestion that the majority of voters have taken to heart as 'the law'. While we are all 'free' to gossip about it ... politicians will be politicians ... just pay your taxes and let the 'chips' fall where they may.

 

[Ritafee]

View attachment 1200

 

[Lastpointe]

You don't cite a source for who "noted" this. I'd be curious to know because as far as I know this isn't even something that the Conservative Party has suggested - which makes me question the reliability of your source.

The only section of the Criminal Code I can find that would even remotely apply would be Section 119, as follows:


But there has to be corruption for this to apply, not just a potential conflict of interest.

Maybe, maybe not. It would be the Prime Minister who would decide whether or not a particular violation warranted removal. Conflict of Interest violations are essentially political issues and the decisions on how to handle them are generally made by politicians for political reasons.

I do agree with the "one standard for Trudeau, another for all the rest" suggestion. If only because Trudeau's mandate letter to his ministers when they took office noted that they should avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest - but Justin Trudeau clearly did not follow that advice himself.

 

[Lastpointe]

You don't cite a source for who "noted" this. I'd be curious to know because as far as I know this isn't even something that the Conservative Party has suggested - which makes me question the reliability of your source.

The only section of the Criminal Code I can find that would even remotely apply would be Section 119, as follows:


But there has to be corruption for this to apply, not just a potential conflict of interest.


Maybe, maybe not. It would be the Prime Minister who would decide whether or not a particular violation warranted removal. Conflict of Interest violations are essentially political issues and the decisions on how to handle them are generally made by politicians for political reasons.

I do agree with the "one standard for Trudeau, another for all the rest" suggestion. If only because Trudeau's mandate letter to his ministers when they took office noted that they should avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest - but Justin Trudeau clearly did not follow that advice himself.

They quoted section 121 (1) (c)

 

[Luce NDs]

Can you really believe anything coming from the office of pole -ite? Tis like a vale of St. IHC ... where you can get stuck ... muck raking!

 

[revsdd]

They quoted section 121 (1) (c)

Thanks for the reference. Sections 119, 120 and 121 are interesting because they apply to different people. 119 applies to Members of Parliament and the holders of judicial office, Section 120 applies to people involved in the administration of justice, and Section 121 applies to "officers and employees of the government."

I think it's questionable whether the Prime Minister (or any MP) wold be considered an officer or employee of the government. I perused the guidelines on MP's allowances. For example, although routinely referred to in the media as "salary," in legal terms MPs get paid a "sessional allowance." They do get a pension (if they serve long enough to be eligible) and they get health insurance, but they don't pay into CPP or EI. They also don't get a Record of Employment when they cease to be an MP. So I doubt they would legally qualify as "employees of the government." As for "officers of the government"? I don't think regular MPs would be considered officers, and Cabinet Ministers (including the Prime Minister) would be advisors to the Crown rather than officers of the government. I think the intent of the Criminal Code is that "officers and employees of the government" is referring to civil servants, not elected MPs.

MPs would also be subject to the Conflict of Interest laws, which is probably why they get a separate Section of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code requires more for MPs to be guilty of a criminal offence - as I said above, it has to be not a simple conflict of interest but rather there has to be deliberate corruption to trigger Section 119, which is probably also why the penalty is 14 years rather than the five years prescribed in Section 121. It's a greater offence from someone in a greater position of power and influence. But I don't think anyone has accused Trudeau of corruption. Carelessness, yes. Hypocrisy, perhaps. But not even the Conservative Opposition has suggested corruption.

So, personally (and no, I'm not a lawyer - just a guy who knows how to read) I don't think either Sections 119 or 121 apply to this incident. It's covered by the Conflict of Interest legislation, and it's been dealt with according to that legislation. The real price for violating the conflict of interest legislation is political.

My Chair of M&P is a retired Crown Attorney. If I think of it I might run this past him just to get his opinion.

 

[Luce NDs]

Yet heh's till floating this foggy thought pattern ... let quantum take over ... something will erupt ... due to oppression!

Tis mental action and it's mate ... Ur ... chez dark, unseen ... the Shadow creeps as hated subconscious ... in-con-science ... insight? Needs mental construct ... persona?