https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @Kathryn98967631 and 47 others
Methinks the Jane and Jody Tag Team should join Maxime's new party right after they fess up about what they know about Federal Court File No T-1557-15 N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/03/philpott-and-wilson-raybould-can-speak.html
#nbpoli #cdnpoli
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rob-walsh-wilson-raybould-privlidge-1.5066960
Philpott and Wilson-Raybould can speak freely on SNC-Lavalin in Commons, says former House law clerk
'In my view they are totally at liberty to say whatever they want' - Rob Walsh
For the past 24 hours, opposition MPs in the House of Commons have staged a series of consecutive confidence votes in an effort to pressure the Liberal government to let former attorney general and justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould answer more questions before a committee of MPs.
According to a former law clerk of the House, however, that pressure tactic may not have been necessary: Wilson-Raybould and her former cabinet colleague Jane Philpott — who resigned from cabinet in protest over the government's handling of the SNC-Lavalin file — can say whatever they want in the Commons, without penalty.
"If they are speaking in the House, or in a committee proceeding, they are absolutely protected by the law of parliamentary privilege and no legal proceedings of any kind can be brought against them based on what they say in the House or in House committee proceedings," Rob Walsh told host Vassy Kapelos today in an interview with CBC News Network's Power & Politics.
"In my view they are totally at liberty to say whatever they want in the House or in appearing before a committee … Doesn't matter what it is. The right is absolute."
Former House of Commons law clerk @toccataprima says Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott can speak freely on the SNC-Lavalin affair under parliamentary privilege: "They are totally at liberty to say whatever they want in the House or appearing before a committee."
Walsh was the law clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons from 1999 to 2012. In that role he was responsible for providing legal services to the Speaker, MPs and committees, and represented MPs in proceedings that involve parliamentary privileges and immunities.
Walsh was offering his insights into the limitations (or lack of them) that affect Wilson-Raybould's ability to say more about her role in the SNC-Lavalin affair and her reasons for resigning from the federal cabinet.
Once before the committee, Wilson-Raybould told MPs that she had been improperly pressured by 11 officials in the Prime Minister's Office to reverse a decision that denied SNC-Lavalin access such an agreement.
Wilson-Raybould also told MPs that when she was shuffled out of her post in January, she felt it was because she had blocked the remediation deal — a charge PMO officials deny.
The waiver
When MPs asked the former justice minister why she resigned from cabinet, she said she could not answer that question — because speaking publicly about what happened after she was moved to the Veterans Affairs portfolio would not be covered by the waiver issued by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The waiver (which actually was issued by the Governor General in Council on a recommendation from the prime minister) said Wilson-Raybould was free to tell the committee any cabinet confidences related to her decision on SNC-Lavalin.
That same waiver also said that she could discuss the decision to deny SNC-Lavalin a remediation agreement — even if, in doing so, she had to reveal legal advice provided to government or discussions she had with government officials that may have been covered by solicitor-client privilege.
"The OIC addresses only my time as attorney general of Canada and therefore does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as minister of veterans affairs and in relation to my resignation from that post or my presentation to cabinet after I had resigned," she wrote.
Opposition outrage
When Wilson-Raybould was asked by committee members if she would return to answer further questions, she said she would.
When opposition MPs on the committee subsequently heard contradictory evidence from the former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, and Trudeau's former principle secretary Gerry Butts, they put forward a motion asking for Wilson-Raybould to return and rebut.
The Liberal majority on the committee voted that request down and, earlier this week, also voted to end the inquiry into whether Wilson-Raybould was improperly pressured, arguing that "Canadians now have the necessary information to arrive at a conclusion."
The decision to shut down the committee inquiry prompted outrage from Conservatives and New Democrats. The Conservative Opposition staged a protest in the Commons this week, tangling the governing Liberals up in a marathon voting session and offering to end it only if Trudeau agrees to let Wilson-Raybould speak.
SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial
But Walsh, an expert in parliamentary privilege, said that Wilson-Raybould could have said whatever she wanted before the committee, regardless of whether or not it violated cabinet confidences or solicitor-client privilege — and she can do so now as well.
The only limitation still facing the former minister, Walsh said, is one of time. As a member of the Liberal caucus, he said, Wilson-Raybould would have to be put on a list given to the Speaker by the government side in order to be given time to speak in the Commons.
Walsh said there are a number of ways Wilson-Raybould could work around that limitation, although he didn't offer specifics.
Former Speaker Peter Milliken told CBC News that an MP can rise in the House of Commons to raise a point of order or a question of privilege, make the argument that their ability to speak freely or act as an MP has been hampered, and then make an extended argument.
Former House of Commons law clerk @toccataprima says he doesn't see any significant legal consequences for Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott if they were to break cabinet confidence OUTSIDE of parliamentary privilege on the SNC-Lavalin affair.
Milliken said the Speaker can cut that MP off if the MP wanders off-topic, but most often the MP is given latitude to make at least an initial 15-minute argument.
Jennifer Quaid, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, points out that while Wilson-Raybould would not be sanctioned in any way for what she says in the Commons, her words could have an impact on SNC-Lavalin's ongoing criminal trial.
"In the same way that you might argue that other things that happen outside of the trial might affect the fairness of the trial, so too you might refer to things that happen in the House of Commons. I don't think the House of Commons offers any cover," she said.
"The question that arises, of course, is on what basis (the defence is) arguing that the fairness of the trial has been affected. And that would have some relationship with your chances of success."
1008 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Commenting is now closed for this story.
David Fletcher
JWR
and Philpott need to say whatever they have to say and get it over with.
The Liberal caucus need to remove them shortly after. With any luck the
Conservatives can have them since they are such fans now.
David R. Amos
Reply
to @David Fletcher: Methinks the Jane and Jody Tag Team should join
Maxime's new party right after they fess up about what they know about
Federal Court File No T-1557-15 N'esy Pas?
Marc Poitras
"According
to a former law clerk of the House ... Wilson-Raybould and her former
cabinet colleague Jane Philpott ... can say whatever they want in the
Commons, without penalty."
Hmmm, so apparently JWR wasn't aware of this. And neither was Trudeau since we would have signed a complete waiver or told her she didn't need any waiver. And neither was any of the opposition members who accepted her statement that the waiver didn't cover the questions being asked.
So, basically, nobody else in the entire parliament was aware that she didn't need a waiver except for this one former law clerk. Or maybe, just maybe, the former law clerk is just plain wrong. Occam's razor.
Hmmm, so apparently JWR wasn't aware of this. And neither was Trudeau since we would have signed a complete waiver or told her she didn't need any waiver. And neither was any of the opposition members who accepted her statement that the waiver didn't cover the questions being asked.
So, basically, nobody else in the entire parliament was aware that she didn't need a waiver except for this one former law clerk. Or maybe, just maybe, the former law clerk is just plain wrong. Occam's razor.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Marc Poitras "According to a former law clerk of the House "
Methinks even Trudeau knows that I encountered the parliamentary counsel Rob Walsh many times when Harper was the PM and and he always acted against me Why else would I sue the Crown in 2015 N'esy Pas?
Methinks even Trudeau knows that I encountered the parliamentary counsel Rob Walsh many times when Harper was the PM and and he always acted against me Why else would I sue the Crown in 2015 N'esy Pas?
Jamie Gillis
I do
look forward to hearing the rest of what she has to say. I fully
support her. But I do have to admit I enjoy watching Trudeau's fan club
become more vicious by the day. It's like a social experiment. How vile
can they become?
David R. Amos
Reply
to @Jamie Gillis: "I do have to admit I enjoy watching Trudeau's fan
club become more vicious by the day. It's like a social experiment. How
vile can they become?"
Methinks you should read your own words sometime N'esy Pas?
Methinks you should read your own words sometime N'esy Pas?
Jamie Gillis
Reply to @David R. Amos:
Oh, I don't think I'm that bad.
Oh, I don't think I'm that bad.
Lucas Williams
"former"
being the operative word here...a has-been legal mouthpiece with
nothing to lose but wanting some self-promotional national air time.
CBC is playing this up to appear that Trudeau is innocent again...
Why doesn't Trudeau publicly give JWR and Philpott absolute freedom to speak; what is he so scared of that he continues to muzzle these two women?
CBC is playing this up to appear that Trudeau is innocent again...
Why doesn't Trudeau publicly give JWR and Philpott absolute freedom to speak; what is he so scared of that he continues to muzzle these two women?
David R. Amos
Reply
to @Lucas Williams: Methinks this article kinda sorta proves that the
Tag Team of Jane and Jody are muzzling themselves in a rather selective
fashion N'esy Pas?
wal wiseman
Reply to @David R. Amos: Then JT needs to call them on it. If there is nothing to hide, if everything that has been said has already been said, then publicly waive all privileges so as to force them to speak. Get it all out in the open. If the PM is not willing to do this then he and the PMO are hiding something.
wal wiseman
Reply to @David R. Amos: Then JT needs to call them on it. If there is nothing to hide, if everything that has been said has already been said, then publicly waive all privileges so as to force them to speak. Get it all out in the open. If the PM is not willing to do this then he and the PMO are hiding something.
Davee Foster
Trudeau musta studied the movie Dodgeball. Dodge, duck, dip, dive and...dodge.
David R. Amos
Reply
to @Davee Foster: Methinks the Ghost of Charles Dickens likely
considers Gerry Butts as a modern form of the "Artful Dodger" N'esy Pas?
Don Cameron
Philpott covered this question at length in her interview with Maclean's.
Reader's Digest version. It's technically possible, but not as easy as it seems.
Here's what she had to say:
"In terms of speaking in the House and using parliamentary privilege as a cover, it is technically possible. It’s easier said than done. Even SO-31s are sometimes sought-after spots, and I don’t think this is something that, you know, you’re going to be able to explain in a few minutes. We got four hours of testimony from the former AG, and I think there’s still a substantial amount of her story that’s not out there. I doubt that I would get four hours of time, or she would, or others would, to be able to explain the story in the House of Commons."
Reader's Digest version. It's technically possible, but not as easy as it seems.
Here's what she had to say:
"In terms of speaking in the House and using parliamentary privilege as a cover, it is technically possible. It’s easier said than done. Even SO-31s are sometimes sought-after spots, and I don’t think this is something that, you know, you’re going to be able to explain in a few minutes. We got four hours of testimony from the former AG, and I think there’s still a substantial amount of her story that’s not out there. I doubt that I would get four hours of time, or she would, or others would, to be able to explain the story in the House of Commons."
David R. Amos
Reply
to @Don Cameron: Methinks the lady could say want needs to be said in
less than a minute then call the RCMP herself N'esy Pas?
Keith Laughton
I do
find it amazing that so many posters are defending the self-declared
feminist Mr Trudeau by attacking the competence and integrity of a pair
of his star female candidates from 2015.
Cognitive dissonance anyone?
Regards,
Cognitive dissonance anyone?
Regards,
David R. Amos
Reply to @Keith Laughton: "Cognitive dissonance anyone?"
Methinks all political parties rely on it and greed and apathy as well N'esy Pas?
Methinks all political parties rely on it and greed and apathy as well N'esy Pas?
Don Cameron:
"As a
member of the Liberal caucus, he said, Wilson-Raybould would have to be
put on a list given to the Speaker by the government side in order to
be given time to speak in the Commons."
In other words, JWR and Philpott would still need Trudeau to agree to put them on the list to be given time to speak. If that actually happened, they would only have a couple of minutes to talk.
It's doubtful either one of them would be able to say what they want to say in 2 minutes. This is all going to come out one way or another. Probably in a way that makes Trudeau very unhappy.
In other words, JWR and Philpott would still need Trudeau to agree to put them on the list to be given time to speak. If that actually happened, they would only have a couple of minutes to talk.
It's doubtful either one of them would be able to say what they want to say in 2 minutes. This is all going to come out one way or another. Probably in a way that makes Trudeau very unhappy.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Don Cameron: "It's doubtful either one of them would be able to say what they want to say in 2 minutes."
Methinks they could say all that needs to be said within a two minute call to another lady who is the current Commissioner of the RCMP N'esy Pas?
Methinks they could say all that needs to be said within a two minute call to another lady who is the current Commissioner of the RCMP N'esy Pas?
wal wiseman
Reply to @David R. Amos: Maybe they already have. How do we know that the RCMP are not already investigating this fiasco?
David R. Amos
Reply to @wal wiseman: "do we know that the RCMP are not already investigating this fiasco?"
Methinks I know for sure it because I have been contacting both of these ladies and the RCMP for years about Federal Court File No T-1557-15 yet everybody is still trying to play dumb today Anyone can Google their names and mine N'esy Pas?
Methinks I know for sure it because I have been contacting both of these ladies and the RCMP for years about Federal Court File No T-1557-15 yet everybody is still trying to play dumb today Anyone can Google their names and mine N'esy Pas?
Bill Nest
As a
card carrying Liberal, I ask JWR and Philpott to stand up in the HOC,
or give them a waiver to make a public announcement. The continual
running to the media with innuendo is doing more harm to the party than
anything they might say.
David R. Amos
Reply
to @Bill Nest: "The continual running to the media with innuendo is
doing more harm to the party than anything they might say. "
Methinks it should be fairly obvious to most folks why I always run as an Independent N'esy Pas?
Methinks it should be fairly obvious to most folks why I always run as an Independent N'esy Pas?
Darren MacDonald
Open up the "non partisan" committee, let them speak.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Darren MacDonald: Good luck with that demand
Mike Miles
Speak
the truth and nothing can happen but good things for Canada. They will
have your back. Meanwhile JT will say and do anything for votes.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Mike Miles: Meanwhile JT will say and do anything for votes.
Methinks all the political party leaders are doing the same N'esy Pas?
Methinks all the political party leaders are doing the same N'esy Pas?
Harold Baines
On and on drags the cover up.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Harold Baines: Welcome to the Circus
No comments:
Post a Comment