Scheer received the letters from Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand on May 23 and 24. They advised that Manitoba Conservatives Shelly Glover and James Bezan could no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons because they failed to file proper campaign returns for the 2011 election.
But Scheer never told other MPs about the letters and their existence became public only this week, when the Ottawa Citizen and Postmedia News reported that Glover and Bezan had gone to court in Manitoba to challenge Mayrand’s position.
They have challenged Elections Canada’s interpretation of how much signage and staff expenses should be included in their returns. If they lose in court, their 2011 campaigns may be found to have exceeded spending limits.
Scheer has decided to let the MPs continue to sit in the House until the Manitoba Court of the Queen’s Bench rules on the dispute over the campaign returns, decision likely not due until the fall.
On Thursday, Quebec Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti, speaking on a question of privilege, asked Scheer to formally table Mayrand’s letter for all MPs to see. Scheer declined Pacetti’s request and instead suggested that he look online.
“My understanding is these types of things are made public by Elections Canada and is even up on some website so I’m sure he’ll be able to obtain a copy if he so desires,” Scheer said, to laughs from the Conservatives benches.
Copies of Mayrand’s letters have not been made public by Elections Canada but they are filed along with the original receipts, invoices and other documents submitted by the Glover and Bezan campaigns.
These documents and the attached letters are available for viewing at Elections Canada’s headquarters in Ottawa, but only in person and by appointment. The Speaker’s Office would not provide copies of Mayrand’s letters. Media organizations, including Postmedia and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, obtained copies only by visiting Elections Canada on Wednesday.
Later Thursday, Liberal MP Wayne Easter told the House of Commons that Scheer should not have kept letters about such an important issue — the eligibility of two MPs — from other members.
“A letter with that kind of content, that refers to ability of members to sit in the House of Commons, suggesting that two members should be suspended, is, I believe a letter to all of us.”
Easter said he would be willing to accept that Scheer’s office, in the heat of the moments, made a mistake about how to handle the letter.
“This is a serious matter for our chamber and our confidence in the speaker and how the speaker operates,” Easter said.
But Rob Walsh, who worked as the chief legal advisor to the Speaker’s office as law clerk and parliamentary counsel from 1999-2012, said Thursday that the Speaker may need time to consider the matter.
“I don’t find it unusual in so far that’s only two weeks have elapsed since he received the letters and it’s an unusual situation,” he said Thursday. “I don’t recall this ever coming up before, so I assume he’s giving the matter the examination it deserves before he moves forward with it.”
Walsh said that parliaments typically wait until courts rule on matters before considering them, so Scheer may be waiting until the cases are heard. Glover has an hearing June 21. Bezan’s is set for September.
But Walsh says the Liberals are within their rights to inquire of the Speaker.
“It’s a fair question they’re presenting,” he said. “The statute says what it says. They’re asking why isn’t something being done about this. It’s a legitimate question as far as it goes.”
Scheer, a Conservative, is supposed to function in a non-partisan role on such issues, but some opposition MPs privately harbour doubts about his impartiality and wonder how much sway the government holds over him on key rulings from the chair.
The CBC posted the letters on its website — apparently the Internet referenced by Scheer in response to Pacetti’s request. But the letter does not become part of the House of Commons official record until it is tabled.
When Liberal MP Scott Andrews raised a question of privilege about the letters on Wednesday, Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan said the matter should be adjudicated by the courts before the House considers it.
Neither Bezan, Glover nor NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen have yet risen to speak to the question.
Cullen said Thursday that he has set up an appointment Friday morning with Richard Denis, Walsh’s successor as Commons law clerk, to hear his legal opinion. New Democrats don’t like the idea of postponing the issue for long.
“Is it until all appeals are satisfied?” he said. “I mean, you can drag this out for a long, long time.”
On May 23, Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley chided the Conservative Party’s legal strategy in an election challenge, accusing the party’s legal team of engaging in “trench warfare in an effort to prevent to prevent (the) case coming to a hearing on its merits.”
“In the robocall case, we saw how the Conservatives acted,” said Cullen. “They took every means possible to drag the decision out and were properly condemned by the judge.”
The same lawyer who handled the election fraud case, Arthur Hamilton, has been representing Glover and Bezan in their dispute with Elections Canada.
Hamilton and Mayrand exchanged a series of sharply worded letters this spring over Glover and Bezan’s refusal to amend their files as directed by the agency. The two MPs will be both be over their election spending limits if they accept the agency’s interpretation of the act, and face possible investigation for violating the law.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com
Author: Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher
No comments:
Post a Comment