XPost: can.politics, ont.politics, bc.politics   
   From: ConsRCons@govt.cda   
      
   If the trial had come during Harper's government strike, aka   
   prorogation, he would have been compelled to testify.   
   If the House is sitting, he's considered to be doing important work.  We   
   all know that that would be bs, so it looks like Harper WILL be   
   testifying, and I'll bet every member in the opposition, independent and   
   even some in the Conservative ranks, would give Harper a hall pass to   
   attend such a trial.   
   _____________________________________________   
   National Post - 11/09/13   
      
   John Ivison:   
   Stephen Harper faces tough decision whether to testify if Mike Duffy   
   faces a criminal trial   
      
      
   The story of Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright is a classic of nonsense   
   literature right up there with Alice’s adventures down the rabbit hole.   
      
   We are asked to believe that Mr. Wright, the prime minister’s former   
   chief of staff, wrote a $90,000 cheque to Mr. Duffy to repay the   
   senator’s ineligible expenses for no apparent benefit. Stephen Harper   
   says he knew nothing about any payment and learned about it on the TV   
   news like the rest of us.   
      
   As with Alice, the story is long on adventure and short on explanation.   
      
   But things might be about to get curiouser and curiouser, if Mr. Duffy   
   is charged with a criminal offence.   
      
   As the National Post revealed last month, sources say Mr. Duffy’s legal   
   team intends to call the Prime Minister as a defence witness.   
      
   Mr. Harper has maintained that Mr. Wright acted alone and that, had he   
   known about the payment, he would have stopped it. Since then though,   
   court documents filed by the RCMP indicate three other senior employees   
   in the Prime Minister’s Office also knew about the cheque. In addition,   
   CTV News reported last month that two Conservative senators were aware   
   of the deal and pressured Mr. Duffy to accept the cheque from Mr. Wright   
   (a suggestion both senators deny).   
      
   There is no evidence Mr. Harper knew of the cheque, but any deviation   
   from the story he’s told so far — or any suggestion that he made a point   
   of not knowing what was happening on the Duffy file — could be fatal for   
   the Prime Minister. In Parliament, statements are not delivered under   
   oath — blurring the issue and bending facts are more or less expected.   
   But in criminal court, witnesses are obliged to tell not just the truth   
   but the whole truth. Consequently, the Prime Minister and his handlers   
   may decide a trip to the witness box is too risky.   
      
   I asked Rob Walsh, the recently retired former Law Clerk of Parliament,   
   to go through the looking glass and suggest how such a scenario might   
   play out.   
      
   He said there are parliamentary “experts” who say an MP’s parliamentary   
   privilege of not being subject to a subpoena during a parliamentary   
   session could enable the Prime Minister to avoid testimony while   
   Parliament is in session. But he said parliamentary privilege does not   
   generally apply to criminal matters, particularly in a case where an MP   
   or senator is the subject of the criminal proceedings.   
      
   “The underlying principle is that the House of Commons has priority over   
   the courts when it comes to the attendance of its MPs, provided   
   Parliament is in session,” he said.   
      
   However, while it’s unclear whether Mr. Harper would be compelled to   
   testify, it is a reasonable assumption that the Prime Minister would be   
   widely criticized if he did not, and that Mr. Duffy’s legal advisors   
   would call for their client to be exonerated if their star witness   
   didn’t show.   
      
   “If Duffy were to lose on this issue, that is, the privilege were found   
   to apply and the Prime Minister need not testify, Senator Duffy could   
   argue he was being denied an opportunity to present a full defence and   
   the charges must be stayed,” said Mr. Walsh.   
      
   It could get a whole lot more complicated than that, if either Mr. Duffy   
   or the Prime Minister appealed the decision on privilege, which could   
   drag out the whole affair until after the 2015 election.   
      
   But the prospects of Mr. Harper being called as a witness in a criminal   
   trial, and of Mr. Duffy getting off on a technicality if that were   
   denied, are entirely plausible, if the case ever goes to trial.   
      
   That remains conjecture but we already know from court documents that   
   the RCMP believes Mr. Duffy’s acceptance of the cheque violates section   
   121 of the criminal code, which makes it illegal for a public official   
   to accept a benefit in exchange for co-operation or influence.   
      
   A criminal trial would at least have the virtue of distinguishing   
   Parliament Hill from the dream world of nonsensical Wonderland, where   
   “sentence then verdict” was the Queen of Hearts’ preferred form of   
   justice.   
      
   If we are ever going to find out what really happened in the   
   Duffy-Wright affair, testimony of all the players under oath may be the   
   best bet.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)