Canada vs Duffy vs PMO

[ToadBrother]

Just out of curiosity and perhaps this is a question for a different thread, were Parliamentary privileges developed with the possibility that a constituencies MP's freedom to speak could be undermined from within the party and PMO? Should they be?

Parliamentary privilege was first substantially asserted during Parliament's struggles with Charles I. a good example was William Lenthall's refusal to allow Charles I and several armed men to arrest the Five Members on January 4th, 1642. Parliamentary Privilege was fully entrenched by the Glorious Revolution.

At the time, the freedom from being summoned to court was to protect MPs from intimidation by the King, though I'm sure another consideration at the time was that MPs could also be harassed for any votes or speeches they made in Parliament. As I said above, I don't see how MPs' freedom of speech could be maintained if they could be summoned to appear in court. MPs would drown in frivolous lawsuits.

It also serves as an important division of powers; in that the Executive and the Judiciary cannot impose themselves on Parliament. This assures the true independence of Parliament.

One should note that it is these same aspects of Privilege that dooms the NDP's lawsuit against the Board of Internal Economy. Parliament is its own master. When Parliament is in session, an MP cannot even arrested, unless he either voluntarily surrenders himself or the Speaker permits the arrest to go ahead. Again, this is all about preserving Parliament against interference by the other branches of government.

I think there are other compelling reasons, particularly with cabinet ministers or members of committees that deal with sensitive information. If cabinet ministers and committee members could be forced to appear in court, there is at least a theoretical possibility that they could be held in contempt if they refused to answer questions pertaining to any oaths or declarations of secrecy they might have taken.

[Je suis Omar]

An ex-Robo caller?

[On Guard for Thee]

The PM has been cleared and wright will back that up. Sorry boys ,

He has immunity. He is a long way from being cleared. This weeks testimony makes a good start at confirming that.

[jacee]

Parliamentary privilege was first substantially asserted during Parliament's struggles with Charles I. a good example was William Lenthall's refusal to allow Charles I and several armed men to arrest the Five Members on January 4th, 1642. Parliamentary Privilege was fully entrenched by the Glorious Revolution.

At the time, the freedom from being summoned to court was to protect MPs from intimidation by the King, though I'm sure another consideration at the time was that MPs could also be harassed for any votes or speeches they made in Parliament. As I said above, I don't see how MPs' freedom of speech could be maintained if they could be summoned to appear in court. MPs would drown in frivolous lawsuits.

It also serves as an important division of powers; in that the Executive and the Judiciary cannot impose themselves on Parliament. This assures the true independence of Parliament.

One should note that it is these same aspects of Privilege that dooms the NDP's lawsuit against the Board of Internal Economy. Parliament is its own master. When Parliament is in session, an MP cannot even arrested, unless he either voluntarily surrenders himself or the Speaker permits the arrest to go ahead. Again, this is all about preserving Parliament against interference by the other branches of government.

I think there are other compelling reasons, particularly with cabinet ministers or members of committees that deal with sensitive information. If cabinet ministers and committee members could be forced to appear in court, there is at least a theoretical possibility that they could be held in contempt if they refused to answer questions pertaining to any oaths or declarations of secrecy they might have taken.

I was under the impression that parliamentary privilege only applied to things said in the House, and MP's can be sued for things said and done outside the House. Can you comment?

.

[Keepitsimple]

He has immunity. He is a long way from being cleared. This weeks testimony makes a good start at confirming that.

LOL. You won't accept the findings of the court anyway - unless they fit your conspiratorial narrative. We know you're desperately hoping that this time - maybe this time - please make it this time - that Harper did something bad. Good luck with that!

[On Guard for Thee]

LOL. You won't accept the findings of the court anyway - unless they fit your conspiratorial narrative. We know you're desperately hoping that this time - maybe this time - please make it this time - that Harper did something bad. Good luck with that!

Have no idea who your WE is but I can tel you there is a difference between hoping and suspecting. Its based on a thing called common sense that the man commonly referred to as a control freak wouldt know what is happening in his own office.

[Bryan]

I was under the impression that parliamentary privilege only applied to things said in the House, and MP's can be sued for things said and done outside the House. Can you comment?

.

Not only can they be, they have been. Just ask Pat Martin.

[ToadBrother]

I was under the impression that parliamentary privilege only applied to things said in the House, and MP's can be sued for things said and done outside the House. Can you comment?

.

Yes, freedom of speech applies only to things said in the House. They can be sued for what they say outside of it. The privilege against being compelled to be subpoenaed as a witness is pretty much universal.

[Topaz]

Freedom of speech in the House at times, can be taken advantage of, as stating half truths when a minister is asked a question.

[Smallc]

Freedom of speech in the House at times, can be taken advantage of, as stating half truths when a minister is asked a question.

That's fine. Most of the time, the question was also a half truth.

[Bryan]

That's fine. Most of the time, the question was also a half truth.

Or less.

[Rue]

ToadBrother a dead on explanation. Well done. Lol I hate Constitutional law. My worst subject. Jacee was correct in her comment on privilege although we should remember in Parliament the speaker can make you retract a statement as being unbecoming, apologize or be asked to leave the chambers.

You all remember some of the MP's and how they were asked to leave. It can get quite funny if not sad the way MP's call each other childish names, interrupt and act like twits.

When I first was reading the details of the case I thought Duffy was toast, now the more I listen to what is unfolding the more I think he will walk and this is going to drag on close enough to hurt Harper in the next election.

In reality, Senators of both the Liberal and Tory parties have been equally as out of touch and corrupt, but the rules allowed it.

This is about public perception. It would have continued do not kid yourselves if the press never had a story to jump on with Pat the rapist drunk and Duffy.

This was going on for years.

What makes it a bit different is that Harper came into office as a Reformist demanding the Senate be abolished. Over the years he did a 360 and bought into the very thing he said he never would.

He does all the things now that as a Reformist he vowed to end. He is in all but name Jean Chretien. The only difference is his take on the economy and foreign policy, in terms of patronage he is no different than Trudeau,Mulroney, Chretien-the problem is he came in on a white horse which now drips with brown manure.

That said please do not tell me Justin or Mulhairy-face are any different.

Y'all ask me abolish the senate. Its like the appendix in our body. It has no longer e a use. Its infected, cut it out.

Think of the money it would save.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Rue

[On Guard for Thee]

Freedom of speech in the House at times, can be taken advantage of, as stating half truths when a minister is asked a question.

If you want a good example of that, just listen to everything after Harper says...let me be perfectly clear...

[Bryan]

If you want a good example of that, just listen to everything after Harper says...let me be perfectly clear...

Or everything both the NDP or Liberals ever ask... Most of it is of the "Given that the Prime Minister eats kittens, will he now step down?", variety.

[On Guard for Thee]

Or everything both the NDP or Liberals ever ask... Most of it is of the "Given that the Prime Minister eats kittens, will he now step down?", variety.

I was thinking more in terms of ...good to go with what, or, can we see the check, or, under what circumstances did Nigel leave the PMO, etc, etc.

[jacee]

Y'all ask me abolish the senate. Its like the appendix in our body. It has no longer e a use. Its infected, cut it out.

Think of the money it would save.

Can't without changing the Constitution. Otherwise Harper would have.

.

[Keepitsimple]

Everyone's waiting for Nigel Wright to take the stand - under oath. Chances are pretty good that he will corroborate exactly what Harper knew and when he knew it - and it will match exactly what Harper has maintained. And that will pretty well take the air out of any juicy conspiracy theories. As mentioned before, in spite of the Harper-haters hopes, I think it has the potential to give the Tories another little bump from those "undecided" voters. Validating Harper's integrity and a desire to pay back Taxpayers' money will likely be the central theme of Wright's testimony. Harper and Wright "wanting to do the right thing" - regardless of the behind-the-scenes political machinations - might win the day in the eyes of those undecided voters. We'll know soon enough.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[The_Squid]

"Thanks for being my best, hardest working appointment ever"

LOL

[On Guard for Thee]

Everyone's waiting for Nigel Wright to take the stand - under oath. Chances are pretty good that he will corroborate exactly what Harper knew and when he knew it - and it will match exactly what Harper has maintained. And that will pretty well take the air out of any juicy conspiracy theories. As mentioned before, in spite of the Harper-haters hopes, I think it has the potential to give the Tories another little bump from those "undecided" voters. Validating Harper's integrity and a desire to pay back Taxpayers' money will likely be the central theme of Wright's testimony. Harper and Wright "wanting to do the right thing" - regardless of the behind-the-scenes political machinations - might win the day in the eyes of those undecided voters. We'll know soon enough.

I think it will do exactly the opposite as the focus of the trial will be as much on Harper, since he did the appointing in the first place, as it will be on Duffy himself. This will further undermine Harpers already waning integrity. I imagine he must have cringed when another of his hand picked heroes, Patrick Brazeau showed up at trial the other day. And I wouldnt be so sure of Wrights testimony exonerating Harper. Why would he even bother trying after he was also thrown under the bus when it became politically expedient.

[Keepitsimple]

I think it will do exactly the opposite as the focus of the trial will be as much on Harper, since he did the appointing in the first place, as it will be on Duffy himself. This will further undermine Harpers already waning integrity. I imagine he must have cringed when another of his hand picked heroes, Patrick Brazeau showed up at trial the other day. And I wouldnt be so sure of Wrights testimony exonerating Harper. Why would he even bother trying after he was also thrown under the bus when it became politically expedient.

We'll soon see. With regards to this issue - I know enough about Wright to accept what he says - good or bad. Will you do the same.....or will you just go running hairs-on-fire down another anti-Harper path?

[On Guard for Thee]

We'll soon see. With regards to this issue - I know enough about Wright to accept what he says - good or bad. Will you do the same.....or will you just go running hairs-on-fire down another anti-Harper path?

It will certainly be interesting to see if we get the answer to what good to go was all about. Regardless of what this trial reveals there are still way too many reasons not to vote for Harper if that what you mean.

[Bryan]

Everyone's waiting for Nigel Wright to take the stand - under oath. Chances are pretty good that he will corroborate exactly what Harper knew and when he knew it - and it will match exactly what Harper has maintained. And that will pretty well take the air out of any juicy conspiracy theories. As mentioned before, in spite of the Harper-haters hopes, I think it has the potential to give the Tories another little bump from those "undecided" voters. Validating Harper's integrity and a desire to pay back Taxpayers' money will likely be the central theme of Wright's testimony. Harper and Wright "wanting to do the right thing" - regardless of the behind-the-scenes political machinations - might win the day in the eyes of those undecided voters. We'll know soon enough.

No matter how this goes, it still looks good on this government: they were the ones who forced the senators to make their spending claims public, they are the ones who made people pay their over-billing back, they are the ones who are trying to fix this systemic problem.

[Big Guy]

Interesting perception. I guess it looked good on the Chretian government when they created the Gomery enquiry to look into advertising spending. It may have looked good on them but seemed not to help them too much in the next election.

[On Guard for Thee]

If the first week is any indication of how the rest of the trial will go, it will be anything but good for this government.

[ToadBrother]

Everyone's waiting for Nigel Wright to take the stand - under oath. Chances are pretty good that he will corroborate exactly what Harper knew and when he knew it - and it will match exactly what Harper has maintained. And that will pretty well take the air out of any juicy conspiracy theories. As mentioned before, in spite of the Harper-haters hopes, I think it has the potential to give the Tories another little bump from those "undecided" voters. Validating Harper's integrity and a desire to pay back Taxpayers' money will likely be the central theme of Wright's testimony. Harper and Wright "wanting to do the right thing" - regardless of the behind-the-scenes political machinations - might win the day in the eyes of those undecided voters. We'll know soon enough.

Whatever happens during this trial, it is going to prove no advantage to the Tories. It might not hurt them, but it isn't going to deliver a bump. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

Wright hasn't been charged because demonstrating intent on his part is difficult, and since everyone at this point seems to agree that Duffy is the principle devil, Wright's testimony is needed for any hope of conviction. But before you crow on about how great Harper and Wright are, let me remind you that what Wright did was wrong and most certainly unlawful, and only his usefulness as a Crown witness is preventing him from being charged. What you're doing would be like proclaiming a Mafia turncoat who testifies against his associates a paragon of virtue.

Under no circumstances should anyone ever hand a sitting Parliamentarian money without fully reporting it, and certainly not with conditions attached. If I was the Crown, I'd gladly offer Wright immunity to go after Duffy, but I'd still find Wright's conduct, and the conduct of the entire PMO, utterly reprehensible. And so did someone in the PMO, because someone started leaking details of Duffygate.

Edited April 12, 2015 by ToadBrother