OK this is going too far! Prime Minister Harper has crossed the line and thrown his personal responsibility and reputation for accountability and transparency out the window. The irony of the circumstances under which “our” Prime Minister is using this device is as breathtaking as is the arrogance of the Right Honourable man’s actions in the first place and in the trial tactics.
The Globe and Mail is reporting that Prime Minister Harper, the leader of our nation, has invoked parliamentary immunity to “extricate (himself) from the matter.” The “matter” is a “tangle of court cases” brought against him and the Cons over an “agreement” (the existence of which is in dispute) that saw Ottawa South nominated candidate Alan Riddell “step aside” in exchange for the Harper Cons repayment of his “election expenses” (the payment of which is apparently still outstanding)
Why was Riddell sidelined you ask? Well so the Cons could replace him with the Adscam poster-boy, Gomery whistle blower and the epitome of how the Cons were going to be cleaning up corruption in government, Mr. Alan Cutler. Cutler lost. Too bad!
The PM’s parliamentary privilege is being invoked in a personal libel action against Stephen Harper and a Con Party President NOT the Prime Minister. The tactics being used by the Cons are somewhere between Monty Python and the Sopranos for ridiculousness, especially if you are Canada’s New Government. You know them as the new kids on the block who are all about the Accountability and the cleaning up of government corruption guys. Spare us the histrionics and hypocrisy Mr. Prime Minister.
There is a culture that has emerged in the CPC. It is not only from this incident. There were similar pay offs in the nominations of Stockwell Day, and the replacement of Ezra Levant, the former self-styled “Stockaholic” fan of the former leader of the Alliance Party. He “volunteered” to step aside for expenses so the newly minded party leader, Stephen Harper, could run in 2002 in Calgary Southwest. Then we have the courts setting aside the Conservative nomination of Rob Anders in Calgary West – twice - for breaches of its own processes and rules.
The RCMP recently decided that certain “new evidence” uncovered in the Day nomination fiasco was not new after all. They said had it all along and decided not to investigate further if this payment scheme was evidence of a Criminal Code violation. You ready for more irony gentle reader. Minister Day is currently the RCMP’s boss. You would have thought that the Mounties would have had another police service conduct the further investigation under the circumstances right? Dreamer! Who needs the appearance of justice when you are the corruption killers? When you are the Cons?
There is a place for privilege and immunity but that goes to the Office of Prime Minister not to the Leader of a political party, as appears to be the case here. The G&M story quotes Mr. Riddell’s lawyer saying if the immunity is applicable to Harper in this case, the legal actions can’t proceed “…until the government fall and an election is called – or possibly until parliament is prorogued.”
I will follow this matter carefully and post on it as it develops. In the meantime let’s hope for principles of democracy and fairness and transparency and accountability will be honoured by the Harper government. And lets watch this carefully since it is an opportunity for citizens to judge the quality of character and capacity for governance of the current minority government and its leader…and our pro tem Prime Minister.
The Cons ought to be providing a full public disclosure as a matter of course just so we ordinary little-people citizens can come to an informed decision if we can trust these people to represent and govern us.
I am ready for an election. I have at least made up my mind of who not to vote for at least. I will be watching for the evidence the true character and the capacity for governance of the other political options very carefully.
Ken, I must say that this a terrible and unresearched post. See below for some examples of how other certain PMs and Ministers regularly invoked privilege:
ReplyDelete"Invoking parliamentary privilege is nothing new. Prime Minister Jean Chretien used it to avoid testifying at the trial of a man who threw a pie in his face, as well as at the Samson Cree’s trial against the federal government. He eventually appeared in that case after he left politics.
Former Industry Minister John Manley also used it to avoid the courthouse in a suit brought by a technology firm."
This post is a distortion of facts and legal realities. Privilege is a benefit conferred upon parliamentaries for many beneficial purposes (I will not go through these as I assume they would be patently clear to a fellow lawyer) and there is nothing wrong either legally or morally to invoking one's rights in a lawsuit. I certainly would not advise waiving legal rights lightly.
As well, stating that there was an agreement to pay expenses for election expenses is entirely inappropriate. This is obviously an unproven allegation and should be carefully stated as such. Luckily this blog is not a popular enough (and despite your numerous inaccuracies would constitute reasonable comment) to justify a lawsuit against your inaccurate statements.
I am glad you are ready for an election - this must include being via fundraising 10 to 1.
A bit over the top, Ken.
ReplyDeleteThis priviledge exists so that every nutjob in Canada can't drag sitting MPs to court for ridiculous or even speculative reasons.
Liberal Ministers used this priviledge, and this Tory doesn't hold it against them.
You are right BR - I support Immunity where appropirate. To extricate yourself from a libel action as a private citizen before you were PM on matters that do not related to your office is not an appropriate use of the protection.
ReplyDeleteThe sword is double edged too. Some politicians have use immunity iwth impunity to slag ordinary citizens - for no good reason - THINK Shane Doan.
Thanks Ken for your one-liner on when and when not the use of parliamentary privilege is appropriate. Such a simplistic attitude towards a rather complicated legal mechanism is not encouraging.
ReplyDeleteIt is these types of distorting and deceiving blog posts that hurry one back to some type of professional media. I mean, you ignore the fact that previous liberal PMs have invoked privilege in the past (in personal actions against them). As well, you state as truths unproven allegations with reckless abandon. If you did this in a courtroom, you would be ridiculed.
No wonder no one wants to donate any financial resources to your party. You would gain much more credibility if you do not disagree just for the sake of disagreeing with the CPC's position.
The national director of the LPC believing that Dion's rivals are out to take over Dion's job - now that's a story with reporting on!
Eric - don't change the channel...the Prime Minister of the country is trying to abuse the privileges of his office to inappropritely avoid (or delay) a lawsuit that relates to his personal status - not his office.
ReplyDeleteIf others did it then they too should be chastized. If you have detailed specifics of others who are doing the same thing let us know - and please provides some authoirty for your examples like media stories or links to court decisions...otherwise you are just trying to misdirect peoples attention.
This is a character issue relating to the how the leader of your party will use power. We citizens get to pass judgement and evaluate such behaviour.
The Divine Right of Kings has long since been abandoned - Harper is not entitled to a Divine Right of Prime Ministers.
As for national directors lets also talk about the firing of the National Citizen's Coalition head...why - for commenting on Harper spending like an old-style Liberal. More abuse or just coincidence? Too bad they could not have run him out of his office in handcuffs with the RCMP's help...again!
Rather than making any substantive arguments on the use of legal privilege you simply state your conclusion that it was an abuse. Pathetic. Normally your blog posts are well-reasoned with supporting arguments in support of your conclusion - I surely hope this post is not a preamble of things to come.
ReplyDeleteEric - I remember a wise law professor once telling a class I was in, "If the law is against you, then argue the facts. If the facts are against you, then argue the Law. If they are both against you then call the other side names."
ReplyDeleteMaybe that prof was the former deputy PM:) Here, the law and historical uses of PV are certainly on Harper's side.
ReplyDeleteNOpe Eric - the prof was not the former Deputy Prime Minister..I am much older than that.
ReplyDelete