Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s job promise to an MLA to step down likely violates criminal code, but don’t expect a prosecution
'Political parties reward their friends all the time, but KLF seems to have been pretty reckless' – former BC Liberal cabinet minister John Les
September 1, 2026
Did BC Conservative Party leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay commit a criminal offence when she told caucus members that any MLA who stepped down so she could run in their riding would get a high-paying job in return?
Probably. Is it being investigated? The RCMP isn’t saying. Is it possible she will be prosecuted? Not a chance.
A recording of Findlay speaking at a caucus meeting leaked on social media is pretty unequivocal about what any MLA who steps down for her could get in return.
“If someone was willing to step aside,” she is heard saying in a relevant excerpt in the recording. “I could get them a role of a senior advisor in their same portfolio so that they're very much involved in it and around.”
EXPLOSIVE NEW KLF AUDIO: SHOULD THE RCMP NOW INVESTIGATE?
— The Findlay Files (@thefindlayfiles) August 27, 2026
The Findlay Files has obtained audio of @KerryLynneFindl addressing members of the @BCConservCaucus behind closed doors.
In it, Findlay discusses what could be done for an MLA that chooses to resign:
“If someone was… pic.twitter.com/y3SlL4xFNn
Section 124 of the criminal code makes it an offence to sell or agree to a sell a resignation or an appointment to office. Section 125(b) hits the nail on the head, saying, in part, that anyone who does the following commits an offence: “negotiates in any manner with respect to… [a] resignation from an office, in expectation of a direct or indirect reward, advantage or benefit.”
Findlay said, if someone steps down, she’d get them high-paying job.
The Criminal Code says, if you offer a reward to resign from office, it’s a criminal offence.
But if you despise Findlay don’t get excited. And if you are a supporter, don’t worry. This will go nowhere.
Asked if this sounded like a violation of section 125(b) specifically (or 124, which covers “selling or purchasing office”), Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee agreed the promise sure sounds like the criminal code offence, but added that it’s a grey area that doesn’t get enforced.
The promise by Findlay, while more overt that maybe it should have been, is along the lines of something that happens in political backrooms all the time.
“I think, generally speaking, it does happen a lot more than we know,” Lee said. “Usually, politicians are smarter about how they make these promises by making it seem more open: ‘After you step down, there'll be lots of opportunities for you to still be involved in the party. We'd love for you to continue your involvement.’ Something vague like that.”
Former Chilliwack mayor and long-time BC Liberal MLA and cabinet minister John Les was also asked about Findlay’s promise and how it sounds like an illegal inducement. After decades behind the scenes, does this happen often inside political parties?
Les said the blatant offer shows, firstly, what a bad leader she is and that a case likely could be made for inducement as outlined in the criminal code.
“Political parties reward their friends all the time (like, Glen Clark is the chair of BC Hydro), but KLF seems to have been pretty reckless,” Les said. “To demonstrate, the guy who gave up his seat for [federal Conservative leader Pierre] Poilievre is combining his wheat this week! He will be rewarded someday, maybe, but only after a decent interval. His resignation seemed genuine and wasn’t induced in any way.”
(Note to the non-farmer: Les used the word “combining” here not as putting multiple things together but a verb to describe the use of a combine harvester, a piece of agricultural equipment.)
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider a one-time donation or subscribe for less than $1 a week so I can continue this work.
He added that the fact that there is a recording of caucus discussions that was leaked online “is further proof there was dissension even then, whenever that happened.”
Is a prosecution in the public interest?
When approving criminal charges, the B.C. Prosecution Service undergoes a two-part charge assessment test. Firstly, is there a substantial likelihood of conviction. Secondly, is taking the matter in question to trial in the public interest.
Even if the answer to the first question is yes, it hardly seems in the public interest to prosecute the leader of a provincial political party for secretly recorded promises made behind closed doors to an entire caucus.
It could cause political chaos and fear about private political conversations. It would also likely give Findlay some form or sympathy and/or martyr status in an ugly public conversation that is most likely not in the public interest.
Two days after asking Lee about the legal question, she elaborated in great detail on the specific question in her Substack. She pointed to three criminal law provisions that could apply here. Addressing sections 124 and 125 as mentioned above, offences that come with up to five years in prison, Lee also pointed to the much more serious criminal offence section 119, “bribery of judicial officers, etc.,” which comes with a maximum sentence of 14 years prison.
“Section 119 is the heavy one,” Lee writes. “It makes it an indictable offence… for a member of a provincial legislature to corruptly accept money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted in their official capacity. In the second half of the section, it also makes it an offence for anyone to corruptly give or offer such a thing to a member. It cuts both ways. The person making the offer and the person taking it are both caught.”
So both Findlay could be prosecuted for making the offer and Gasper could be prosecuted for accepting it.
But Lee – who is a lawyer, remember – points out that these criminal code offences each hinge on one word. For section 119, the word “corruptly” is in the sections covering anyone who accepts any “valuable consideration” or “office” or anyone who offers it.
“What makes conduct corrupt is a state of mind, not an outcome. The Crown would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the benefit was offered as a bargain – quid pro quo, this for that – with knowledge that the arrangement was improper, rather than as the sort of accommodation political organizations make all the time. That is a demanding standard to prove from a recording of a group conversation, particularly one in which the speaker is talking in hypotheticals about what she thought she might be able to do.”
So section 119 is essentially out with its prosecutorial bar so high it would never be considered.
Sections 124 and 125 turn on the word “office,” which the Code defines as “an office or appointment under the government, a civil or military commission, and a position of employment in a public department.”
Lee explains that an elected seat is obviously none of those, although that would apply to any inducement to help Findlay get the position of MLA. The offer to Gasper to resign for a job would be covered.
Still, none of this has ever been successfully done in Canada so the chances of it happening here are slim to none.
“For this to become a criminal case rather than a political one, the RCMP would have to investigate, identify and interview whoever made the recording, obtain the original file, establish who was in the room and what was actually said, and then satisfy the B.C. Prosecution Service that there is a substantial likelihood of conviction on an offence that has almost never been prosecuted against elected office in this country. Only then would a charge be laid, and only then would any of it be tested.”
Internal party squabbling
All of this is arguably external noise regarding a recording that would have to be verified in court about an inducement that is likely not too uncommon in political circles.
More important for the BC Conservatives is that now that Chilliwack-Cultus Lake MLA Á:aliya Warbus resigned from caucus, that is now seven departing members since Findlay took over.
As for Gasper stepping down in Abbotsford-Mission, this, too, is a head-scratcher for former senior party insiders baffled at the inane decisions Findlay is making.
“The predictable is happening with [Findlay],” Les said. “Crashing and burning for all to see. Her incompetence and cluelessness is on full display. Her final demise is a question of when, not if.”
None of this would even be a discussion if Findlay made the most obvious choice for all those inside the BC Conservative caucus.
“All of this would have been totally unnecessary had KLF told her husband, on May 31, to vacate his seat so she could run there,” Les said, speaking of South Surrey MLA Brent Chapman who is married to Findlay and with whom she lives in the riding.
“That’s what everyone expected. It would also have removed the awkwardness of having the leader’s spouse in the caucus. Again, KLF was too stupid to make the obvious decision.”
Les pointed out that when the final collapse of the party comes, Gasper will find out she got “snookered,” as her promised job disappeared too.
“The shuffling of chairs on the deck and diving into lifeboats will go on. The question is: how long do we need to endure this ghastly display before the whole shebang goes down?”
-30-
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation so I can continue this work.
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social