The thin line between politics and crime

Perhaps, as has been suggested, we should equip Members of Parliament with hidden microphones. Until now that was thought to be the modus operandi only of Liberal party fundraisers, but if it is true we live in a country where Senate seats are offered or sought in exchange for opposition MPs missing a non-confidence vote, then it’s probably best they all wear a wire.

As it is, we are dependent on Inky Mark’s phone logs to determine whether or not a Liberal cabinet minister called him, as he claims, with an offer of a government appointment of some kind. Of which kind? Of a kind that would prompt his immediate resignation from the House of Commons. How immediate? Immediate enough to ensure he misses a non-confidence vote.

This is a serious, serious charge, to judge by the speed with which Reg Alcock, the president of Treasury Board, headed for the nearest microphone. “There is absolutely no way that this Prime Minister will authorize any undertaking of that sort, period,” he told reporters. “Will not happen. Has not happened. Is not going to happen. Period!" Well, that’s actually an exclamation mark, but you get the point. The idea was unthinkable.

Except, it seems, to his boss. In an interview with CanWest News Service, the prime minister was clearly thinking it. Pressed on what measures he envisaged to avoid defeat in the House, he mused: "If you look at the Senate appointments that we've made in the past, I think I was the first prime minister who appointed an NDPer. We appointed Conservatives in the past. So to a certain extent, I've already answered your question." You can almost hear him simpering at his own slyness.

But what’s the big deal, anyway? Wasn’t Art Eggleton appointed to the Senate as a reward for giving up his seat for Ken Dryden -- a question the Prime Minister repeatedly ducked, as Robert Fulford has noted, under interrogation by the CBC’s Anthony Germain. But that’s different. That’s just patronage. Besides, that was Liberals allegedly doing favours for Liberals. When Canadian Alliance MP Jim Hart gave up his seat for Stockwell Day, you’ll recall, allegedly in return for a $50,000 “severance package,” it was the subject of RCMP inquiries, if not a formal investigation. (No charges were laid.)

Whether the RCMP will investigate the present case is an interesting question. But if the laws of the country mean anything, it is hard to see how they couldn’t. Under Section 119 (1) of the Criminal Code,

every one who ... being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly (i) accepts or obtains, (ii) agrees to accept, or (iii) attempts to obtain, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity,

or makes such an offer, is “liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” Under Section 124,

every one who purports to sell or agrees to sell an appointment to or a resignation from an office, or a consent to any such appointment or resignation, or receives or agrees to receive a reward or profit from the purported sale thereof,

or offers to buy an appointment or resignation is good for up to five years in the slammer.

If offering an appointment corruptly is a crime, and if offering to resign corruptly is a crime, then offering an appointment in exchange for a resignation, or offering to resign in exchange for an appointment, is surely also a crime. The question, of course, is whether such offers are made or accepted corruptly. The “it’s just patronage” defence depends heavily on this: Eggleton didn’t resign his seat in the House in exchange for a Senate seat. It’s just that, as a good party man, naturally he did the right thing by the party; and as a good party man, he was naturally on the list for elevation to the Senate. But that the one might have anything to do with the other? Heaven forfend.

But when the offer is allegedly made, not to a member of the governing party, but an opposition member, this is a little harder to maintain. Or at least, it’s harder to keep everyone quiet.

Now, I’m not saying who’s right. But Mr. Mark’s statements and Mr. Alcock’s denials are hard to square. Unless they are both mistaken -- perhaps this is all just a giant misunderstanding -- then it would seem that one of them is lying. And it would seem a matter of some urgency to find out who. (At the very least, Mr. Mark ought to say who called him.)

But we won’t, will we? We have all been conditioned to expect nothing better from those we elect. Having taught ourselves to chuckle wryly at mere patronage, at jobs for party members, we are that much more inclined to look the other way when the terms of trade become jobs for girlfriends, or jobs for resignations, or contracts for cash. It isn’t just the people in politics who eventually lose track of where the boundary lines are. It’s us.