OTTAWA -
Larry O'Brien was seeking a "direct, concrete and specific benefit" when he dangled a federal appointment in front of a rival candidate, a prosecutor argued Tuesday in a bid to keep the Ottawa mayor's criminal trial alive.
O'Brien's defence team is seeking to have two influence-peddling charges tossed out of Ontario Superior Court on the rationale that corruption charges only relate to tangible, material, economic gain -- not political benefits.
Judge Douglas Cunningham, the associate chief justice of Ontario Superior Court, announced he'll rule on O'Brien's directed verdict application June 26. That effectively puts the trial on hold until early July, if it resumes at all.
O'Brien is alleged to have offered to arrange a job with the National Parole Board for Terry Kilrea, a fellow right-of-centre candidate in the 2006 race for mayor. In return, Kilrea alleges he was expected to quit the municipal race to avoid splitting the conservative vote.
The defence has argued that even if such an offer was made, it could compared to former prime minister Paul Martin luring Tory Belinda Stronach across the Commons floor with the promise of a cabinet post -- or countless other such political deals.
But prosecutor Scott Hutchison said Tuesday the case against O'Brien isn't some "soft, ephemeral, emotional" benefit.
Offering Kilrea an appointment to the parole board, as the Crown alleges, was a means for O'Brien to get something he valued, and that's exactly what the Criminal Code statutes were designed to stop.
"It is unseemly -- and properly caught by the (Criminal Code) section -- for people to go around saying they will trade in government appointments or government contracts in exchange for things that recipient values," Hutchison argued.
Cunningham is hearing the case without a jury. The veteran judge challenged Hutchison a number of times.
The prosecution argued that luring party-switchers is a different transaction because both parties to the floor-crossing want the same thing -- the participation of that MP in cabinet.
The judge responded that Martin's Liberal government benefited from Stronach's defection by surviving a non-confidence motion by a single vote in June 2005.
"He was desperate to have her in his cabinet, is that what you're saying? Why would he want her in his cabinet?" the judge provocatively asked.
"Cabinet may have been a perk, but he wanted her and he wanted her vote."
The judge also challenged the prosecutor by appearing to accept the central premise of the O'Brien defence team's argument.
"It seems to me the very nature of political activity does involve a certain amount of trading in promises -- `if you do something for me, if you support the party, you will be rewarded'," said the judge.
"That's the nature of patronage."
Hutchison repeatedly stressed that what's alleged in this trial is an individual using influence, or pretending to have influence, to offer something for personal gain.
"It's not an absurd result to say you can't buy something that you value by trading on a government position or a government contract," said the prosecutor. "There's nothing absurd about that."
The prosecutor also alluded to the corruption conviction in 2000 of a B.C. contractor who did work on former premier Glen Clark's deck in an effort to win a casino licence.
"How can it be that performing the service of running for office is any different than performing the service of fixing your deck?" Hutchison asked.
"It can't be the case that the law only means to capture handymen and not candidates."
Larry O'Brien was seeking a "direct, concrete and specific benefit" when he dangled a federal appointment in front of a rival candidate, a prosecutor argued Tuesday in a bid to keep the Ottawa mayor's criminal trial alive.
O'Brien's defence team is seeking to have two influence-peddling charges tossed out of Ontario Superior Court on the rationale that corruption charges only relate to tangible, material, economic gain -- not political benefits.
Judge Douglas Cunningham, the associate chief justice of Ontario Superior Court, announced he'll rule on O'Brien's directed verdict application June 26. That effectively puts the trial on hold until early July, if it resumes at all.
O'Brien is alleged to have offered to arrange a job with the National Parole Board for Terry Kilrea, a fellow right-of-centre candidate in the 2006 race for mayor. In return, Kilrea alleges he was expected to quit the municipal race to avoid splitting the conservative vote.
The defence has argued that even if such an offer was made, it could compared to former prime minister Paul Martin luring Tory Belinda Stronach across the Commons floor with the promise of a cabinet post -- or countless other such political deals.
But prosecutor Scott Hutchison said Tuesday the case against O'Brien isn't some "soft, ephemeral, emotional" benefit.
Offering Kilrea an appointment to the parole board, as the Crown alleges, was a means for O'Brien to get something he valued, and that's exactly what the Criminal Code statutes were designed to stop.
"It is unseemly -- and properly caught by the (Criminal Code) section -- for people to go around saying they will trade in government appointments or government contracts in exchange for things that recipient values," Hutchison argued.
Cunningham is hearing the case without a jury. The veteran judge challenged Hutchison a number of times.
The prosecution argued that luring party-switchers is a different transaction because both parties to the floor-crossing want the same thing -- the participation of that MP in cabinet.
The judge responded that Martin's Liberal government benefited from Stronach's defection by surviving a non-confidence motion by a single vote in June 2005.
"He was desperate to have her in his cabinet, is that what you're saying? Why would he want her in his cabinet?" the judge provocatively asked.
"Cabinet may have been a perk, but he wanted her and he wanted her vote."
The judge also challenged the prosecutor by appearing to accept the central premise of the O'Brien defence team's argument.
"It seems to me the very nature of political activity does involve a certain amount of trading in promises -- `if you do something for me, if you support the party, you will be rewarded'," said the judge.
"That's the nature of patronage."
Hutchison repeatedly stressed that what's alleged in this trial is an individual using influence, or pretending to have influence, to offer something for personal gain.
"It's not an absurd result to say you can't buy something that you value by trading on a government position or a government contract," said the prosecutor. "There's nothing absurd about that."
The prosecutor also alluded to the corruption conviction in 2000 of a B.C. contractor who did work on former premier Glen Clark's deck in an effort to win a casino licence.
"How can it be that performing the service of running for office is any different than performing the service of fixing your deck?" Hutchison asked.
"It can't be the case that the law only means to capture handymen and not candidates."
