OTTAWA - An 18th-century British law passed to prevent rich people from ducking creditors by becoming MPs means Prime Minister Stephen Harper cannot claim parliamentary privilege to avoid testifying in a libel suit he faces from a former Conservative party member, a court heard yesterday. A lawyer for Alan Riddell, who launched the legal action after Mr. Harper and a party official denied the party agreed to compensate him for abandoning a nomination contest before the 2006 election, argued that parliamentary privilege does not protect MPs who are being sued. "The privilege does not exist when he [an MP] is a defendant," lawyer Colin Baxter said in response to arguments from Mr. Harper's lawyer, Richard Dearden. Mr. Dearden said the Prime Minister cannot be compelled to testify while Parliament is in session, or for 40 days before or after Parliament is in session.
Mr. Baxter said the claim, based on a series of court interpretations and rulings of parliamentary privilege in Canada, could ultimately prevent Mr. Riddell from being able to vindicate himself in the dispute with Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper and party president Don Plett denied Mr. Riddell's claim of an agreement with the Conservatives to step aside in favour of a star candidate for the past election.Mr. Baxter, a former law clerk with the Supreme Court of Canada who was acting in court for Mr. Riddell because his regular lawyer, Tom Conway, had to submit an affidavit himself for the hearing, said the British Parliamentary Privilege Act of 1770 took away sweeping protection from lawsuits that had previously existed for Members of Parliament. The statute became part of Canadian law at Confederation in 1867 and still stands today, Mr. Baxter argued.
Despite that, Mr. Dearden pointed to several court rulings, including an Ontario Court of Appeal judgment, that allowed former politicians, including former industry minister John Manley and former finance minister Paul Martin, to avoid being compelled to appear in court even though they were named in lawsuits. Mr. Dearden argued the claim of privilege does not mean Mr. Harper cannot be sued or eventually be called to swear evidence -- only that he cannot be forced to give evidence while Parliament is in session or during the 40-day periods before and after parliamentary sessions. MPs cannot be compelled to testify in cases that do not involve them directly.
Later, Mr. Baxter said the history of time periods between parliamentary sessions suggests the Prime Minister might never have to testify because intervals between sessions are so short. Mr. Riddell stepped aside as a potential Conservative candidate for the 2006 election to make way for star candidate Allan Cutler, the public works whistleblower whose complaints eventually led to an inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.
No comments:
Post a Comment