3

From the Mulroney/Schreiber Files: So … is that a yes or a no?


 

From the Mulroney Media Room:

The following letter was delivered to Richard Rumas, Committee Clerk, today:

Sir:

Prior to Mr. Mulroney considering the Committee’s request for his re-appearance, please advise as to the subjects the members want to canvass that have not already been covered by Mr. Mulroney and other witnesses during the Committee’s lengthy hearings, and which were the subject of the Committee’s final report and recommendations to Parliament.

Yours truly,

Mtre Tommy Tremblay, on behalf of Mtre Guy J. Pratte.

Actually, it sounds more like ‘Why?’ but that hasn’t stopped the Ethics committee from putting the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney on the witness schedule for next Thursday’s meeting.

Oh, and remember that opposition day motion to amend the Conflict of Interest Code in response to the Dawson ruling on Robert Thibault?  It sailed through the House last night: YEAS: 145, NAYS: 115, which means that if the former Prime Minister does show up, Liberal MP Robert Thibault should, in theory, be just as free to question him as any other member of the committee, regardless of the defamation lawsuit.

Incidentally, the debate over the motion is a must-read for all those parliamentary geeks out there (and you know who you are). I’ll try to post a few of the highlights later today.


 

From the Mulroney/Schreiber Files: So … is that a yes or a no?

  1. I still say that Tom Lukiwsky has a point here that needs to be looked and I quote : I would give the member a suggestion and ask him whether or not he agrees with it. If there is a legitimate lawsuit brought forward by a member of the public against a sitting member of Parliament and that member of Parliament is allowed to speak to that issue at a committee level, in effect that member of Parliament would have an advantage over the member of the general public who brought the lawsuit.In effect, the member of Parliament would be conducting an examination for discovery or, in other words, putting his own private interest in that case over that of the general public. That is why we have a commissioner to interpret cases on a case by case basis. If there were a lawsuit that had no effect as to the subject material in the committee, then the member would not be encumbered.I would simply ask the member this. Does he not agree that the overarching principle of all members in this House should be to put the public interest over the private interests of members of Parliament?

  2. Yes, and if you read Derek Lee’s response, you’ll see:
    “…only the evidence adduced in the trial at the hearing.

    However, everything that happens in this House and at committee is privileged and bound by parliamentary privilege. It is not usable. It cannot be used or transported outside this place.”

    Personally, my favourite part is where David Tilson ‘helpfully’ suggest the motion be dealt with at Procedure and House affairs.

  3. Now there’s an idea – send it to the committee ROFL LMAO

Sign in to comment.