What's the crime bill say on bribery?

The Conservatives' big crime bill - you know, the one that prompted the Harper ultimatum to Liberal senators? - is receiving royal assent today.

Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc, who's also the justice critic, said he was headed over to the ceremony to kick up a fuss, because now he's not convinced that the Conservatives are as tough on crime as they say they are. Why? "There are no mandatory minimums for bribery," LeBlanc cracked.

(That's a reference to the big and developing story in Ottawa today about whether the Conservatives tried to buy the vote of former MP Chuck Cadman back in 2005.)

Here's the letter that LeBlanc has sent (.pdf) today to the RCMP.

Comments

[Victor]

Prime Minster Harper, being a specialist at manipulation and hidden corruption, has finally slipped up due to the exposure by Mrs Cadman, of the attempted bribe on her Husband, the late Chuck Cadman, being offered by the Conservatives a $million Insurance policy plus other things, for his vote to clinch a succesful down fall of the Liberal Government.Chuck Cadman was disgusted and declined the bribe and in fact voted for the Liberals.Prime Minister Harper and his government should be investigated by the RCMP for such a low corrupt act, and should Resign.

[Joe Davis]

No different than the Liberals offering Belinda Stronach a cabinet position for her vote on the same confidence motion. No doubt that bribery is wrong and no party should engage in any of it, but I will submit that at least Harper tried to dissuade the two operatives from engaging Cadman instaed of personally doing so like Paul Martin did with Stronach.

[MJB]

No, Joe, this is not the same thing. An outside interest could not offer Stronach a cabinet position. However, who underwrote this 'insurance policy'? The Conservative party? Outside business intereasts? Whatever you think of crossing the floor (should the crossing MP face an immediate byelection in their riding?), that is a separate issue. Here is an offer (if indeed this was a 'life insurance policy', how could a terminally ill man be approved?) that would benefit his family, and therefore not even open to parliamentary salary scrutiny, and therefore would be lost to the public. Certainly, Stronach's move was well scrutinized by everyone.

[Jose Escalora]

It is ridiculous to believe that any insurance company will execute any policy over a terminally ill person. But some said "nearly impossible" only because insurance company may accept to insure someone for a sum equal to that of the premium plus administrative costs. But whatever that was offered: help in a re-election, insurance policy, or "But the, uh, the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election" definitely, such was a "valuable consideration" in respect of anything omitted to be done by that person in his official capacity. Is this not a crime? I do not think that this is done in good faith, this is completely premeditated with full knowledge of the criminal law?

Some said Dion is weak, indecisive, etc. But did anyone accuse him of committing any criminal act?

I think it is about time Canadians decide who do they want as their leader: a weak one or one who could be indicted for a crime?