A day after the Peterborough, Ont., MP launched a media offensive calling on Elections Canada to either charge him over his 2008 campaign expenses or clear his name, Del Mastro took the highly unusual step of asking the speaker of the House of Commons to find a breach of privilege — the fundamental right of MPs to represent their constituents.
“Over the past several months, there have been charges made against my character which have served to impact on my functions as a member of this place, charges that I entirely reject,” an emotional Del Mastro said in House on Thursday.
“I had hoped that the most recent report of the Chief Electoral Officer would set these allegations aside, exonerating me of any allegations, but was instead silent on the matter.”
Reporters watching Del Mastro speak said he appeared to be fighting back tears as he read his statement.
Del Mastro referred to a question in the House by Newfoundland MP Scott Andrews, who on Wednesday referred to Del Mastro’s “unethical and illegal returns.”
Del Mastro cited a 1983 precedent that, he said, support a prima facie breach of privilege claim if comments made about an MP are defamatory.
An MP cannot function effectively “while the slur upon his reputation remains,” he said.
Since March 2011, Elections Canada has been investigating allegations that Del Mastro and his official agent illegally overspent on his 2008 campaign and took steps to cover up the spending.
The court order that listed the alleged Elections Act violations was first obtained by the Ottawa Citizen and Postmedia News in June 2012. The court order was filed to compel Frank Hall, who ran voter contact firm Holinshed Research Group, to provide documents to Elections Canada about Del Mastro’s 2008 campaign. According to the documents, Del Mastro paid for campaign calls from Holinshed with a $21,000 personal cheque, but did not declare the expense. The allegation, which has not been proved in court, would mean Del Mastro exceeded his campaign spending limit by $17,000 and also the $2,100 contribution limit for candidates.
Those violations are each punishable by a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for as long as five years.
Del Mastro has stated that the $21,000 cheque was not for election work and that he was reimbursed by his riding association.
Del Mastro told the House on Thursday he was unaware of the document at the time of the Citizen-Postmedia report, and accused Elections Canada of leaking it.
He said he has “been subjected to unfounded hatred, contempt and ridicule as the result of a leaked document belonging to Elections Canada” ever since a Postmedia reporter first contacted him about the document.
“The reporter in question had in his possession a sealed court document related to an ex parte proceeding that was entirely unknown to me, and contained allegations and statements that I categorically deny.”
In fact, the court document had never been sealed by a court.
But Del Mastro claimed neither his lawyer nor other journalists were, at the time, able to get a copy of the Information to Obtain a production order — an “ITO” — sworn by Elections Canada investigator Thomas Ritchie and laying out specific allegations of spending violations.
“The obvious question that I had at the time was, is it true? What is going on? Why does a reporter know about this before I do?”
Del Mastro also used his comments in the House to attack Hall. Hall, who is named repeatedly in the ITO, was not available to comment. His company, Holinshead, is in receivership.
As he did in a series of interviews this week, Del Mastro again expressed frustration that the Elections Canada investigation has dragged on for over two years. He says his lawyer wrote to the agency on Wednesday offering to meet and provide any additional information they need to resolve the case.
In his published and broadcast media interviews, he did not name Hall, as he did in the House on Thursday.
It will now be up to Speaker Andrew Scheer to rule on Del Mastro’s privilege claim, although a former law clerk of the House of Commons expressed doubt about its merits.
Rob Walsh said that he couldn’t recall another case where an MP used parliamentary privilege — which allows members to speak without fear of defamation actions — to attack a private individual.
“It would appear that Mr. Del Mastro is taking advantage of the immunity that he enjoys as a member of parliament to say things with impunity in the chamber about a private citizen that he wouldn’t say perhaps outside the chamber,” said Walsh.
Walsh said it appeared to him that Del Mastro’s statement was designed to give him a platform, and that the point doesn’t appear to have legal merit.
“He appears to be fighting his battle with elections canada on the floor of the house, and I don’t think those kinds of matters fall within parliamentary privilege,” he said.
NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen said he would take a position on the privilege claim later but said he thought Andrews’ remark may have crossed the line and he invited the Liberal MP to retract them and apologize.
Elections Canada refuses to comment on ongoing investigations. According to an email he provided to the Globe and Mail, Elections Canada investigator Al Mathews said in April that the file was headed to the Commissioner of Elections Yves Côté.
If a charge is to be laid, Côté would send a recommendation to the Public Prosecution Service for evaluation, a process that can take months before a charge is laid.
Neither Elections Canada nor the Public Prosecution Service will say whether the file has been sent to prosecutors.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com
Author: GLEN MCGREGOR AND STEPHEN MAHER
No comments:
Post a Comment