Developing: Scott Reid challenges Mark Holland and Marlene Jennings on a point of privilege
On the story of Liberal MP Mark Holland and the boxes of Conservative Party documents that never got moved despite being labeled, we have developments in Ottawa.
I've been told that, just after Question Period was concluded, Conservative MP Scott Reid raised a point of privilege and asked that Mark Holland and fellow Liberal Party MP Marlene Jennings be declared as having acted "in contempt of Parliament". Apparently the argument hinges on the fact that the boxes were labeled. Speaker Peter Milliken has reserved judgment until Holland and Jennings have responded to the charge.
More details as they become available.
Thanks to Hunter for the head's up and to my sources in Ottawa for the preliminary details.
Read on for details on what "contempt" means.
Update: Scott Reid accuses Mark Holland and Marlene Jennings of being thieves and liars.
From the House of Commons Procedure and Practice:
Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a "breach of privilege" and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its Officers. "The rationale of the power to punish contempts, whether contempt of court or contempt of the Houses, is that the courts and the two Houses should be able to protect themselves from acts which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions." In that sense, all breaches of privilege are contempts of the House, but not all contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege.
Holding on to boxes clearly labeled with the heraldic arms of the House of Commons indicating they are under the control of the House as part of an administrative move would seem to fall into the category of an obstruction of an Officer of the House in the discharge of his or her duties:
So what happens if Holland and Jennings are found in contempt? Hard to say, because it almost never happens:
The reluctance to invoke the House's authority to reprimand, admonish or imprison anyone found to have trampled its dignity or authority and that of its Members appears to have become a near constant feature of the Canadian approach to privilege. Though the power of the House to imprison remains, it is difficult to foresee circumstances arising that would oblige the House to invoke it.
So technically, Holland and Jennings could be chucked into a cell, but it's highly doubtful.
There is, however, no doubt that the Canadian House of Commons remains capable of protecting itself from senseless abuse should the occasion ever arise.
In only a very few cases in Canadian practice has the House, or a procedure committee report, recommended a punishment. A 1976 committee report did chastise a former Member (Auguste Choquette) who claimed that many parliamentarians had obtained undue financial considerations. After the former Member maintained his allegation under questioning, the committee concluded that his attitude was intemperate and irresponsible, but recommended no further consideration be given to the matter. In the 1987 Parry case, the Committee also did not recommend punishment and the Member's apology to the House put an end to the matter. In the 1996 Jacob case, the Committee noted that while the Member's actions were ill advised, they did not amount to contempt or a breach of parliamentary privilege.
So maybe an apology, if Speaker Peter Milliken rules that Holland and Jennings is in contempt. The fact that the Speaker has not dismissed the charge out of hand and is instead requiring that Holland and Jennings reply means that Milliken is taking this seriously.
Stay tuned.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Mark Holland Marlene Jennings Scott Reid Liberal Party Conservative Party Canada
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Thanks for the link. Now, just from my watching of the proceedings, Milliken was very clear about the fact that Holland and Jennings needed to present their case. But, he also mentioned seeing them carting the documents out of a government building, he seemed pretty disgusted with their behaviour.
It's in the Liberals court now, and I don't think Milliken being a Liberal is going to have anything to do with his ruling, he is going to be fair.
Posted by: Hunter at March 29, 2007 07:31 PM
Fascinating.
Hunter, do you mean you watched it on CPAC or something?
Posted by: Larry at March 29, 2007 07:51 PM
CPAC shows footage live at 2 and then the taped version again at 9, I think.
Posted by: Steve Janke at March 29, 2007 07:53 PM
Holland is a rookie MP but he is trying to be a star. He seems to have a problem keeping his foot out of his mouth. All the power to him, give him enough rope.
Posted by: Jake114 at March 29, 2007 08:07 PM
Larry, yes I saw it on CPAC, it was about 5 minutes after QP had ended. It wasn't immediately after QP, like you see with points of order.
Posted by: Hunter at March 29, 2007 08:14 PM
Five minutes seemed immediate to me, but I'll reword it. ;-)
Posted by: Steve Janke at March 29, 2007 08:27 PM
Hunter is full-of-it.
Scott Reid never moved a motion. He provided a lengthy accounting of what the PMO says had happened. He added a new twist: apparently, on one of the boxes was a marking "Boxes for Bosch", or something like that. Apparently Bosch is head of Liberal Oppo Research.
Milliken was not disgusted, or made any remarks suggesting he was. He seemed to ask Goodale if Holland/Jennings would make a statement, and decided to wait before making a ruling. Given that the House breaks for two weeks, you are probably not going to hear from Holland before the next election is called.
Once he makes a ruling, Reid can then make a motion, after which it will go to the Procedures Cmte for a hearing.
Holland is a lawyer. The Liberal party is full of lawyers. They will not have allowed boxes to be videotaped before first crossing the Ts and dotting the Is.
They have something. Or, they are just playing head games with the chuckleheads in Harper's PMO. Or both.
Posted by: at March 29, 2007 09:48 PM
Mark Holland is a lawyer? Funny his bio on his website never mentions it.
http://www.markholland.ca/bio.htm
A graduate of the University of Toronto in political science and history, Mark has also completed a wide array of courses from the Canadian Securities Institute.
Posted by: Klondike at March 29, 2007 09:55 PM
To the person who says, I'm full of it. No, I am telling it like I saw it. I never said Reid moved a motion, he rose on a point of privilege, asking for the Speaker to rule on whether Holland and Jennings had acted "in contempt of Parliament", and I never saw Goodale, so I don't know who Milliken was talking to on the Liberal side, but obviously you do. Wait for the hansard, it will tell the story.
Funny though, you just verified that there was a call for a "contempt of Parliament" on Holland and Jennings. So, my point is made. Holland and Jennings have got to show how their actions were not contempt of Parliament. Over to the Liberals, trying to spin this one. Do I hear paper shreaders?
Posted by: Hunter at March 29, 2007 10:28 PM
Mark Holland appears to be petty and more than a bit ethically challenged. I think he is trying to be the present day "rat pack" of the Mulroney years. Unfortunately for him he doesn't seem that smart; certainly not thinking through the consequenses of his actions. Kinda like the libs going after the RCMP. It may well backfire and burn a lot of liberals. They should remember the incidences happened under the liberal watch because the RCMP had a quid pro quo relationship with the upper echelons of the liberal party.
Posted by: joe at March 29, 2007 10:42 PM
>They have something. Or, they are just playing head games with the chuckleheads in Harper's PMO. Or both.
Here's some wild speculation: We already know that there was some discussion about paying out the "compensation package" as "consulting fees" so as to split income and get an illegal tax break. We also know that there was some discussion that the party would pay part and the opposition leaders office would pay part of the package.
Not smoking guns but they sure smell like gun powder. What if the confidential settlement was structured to split income and/or what if tax dollars earmarked for the Office of Leader of the Opposition -for use towards legitimate Parliamentary business - was used to create a seat for a party leader? Worse yet - what if there are smoking guns and the Cons are trying to cover it up with claims of "confidentiality", " privilege" and attempts to bully via contempt motions ?
Now ask this question - Who, other than the Libs, has an ownership interest in the boxes ?
We already know that the PMO isn't claiming an interest. They were told to come fetch 'em and didn't. When delivered to them they refused ownership.
We already know that the papers are all, or mostly, Reform/Alliance Party paperwork. They no longer exist -there is no entity to claim ownership, nobody claiming to represent them or their heir ( Conservative Party ) has come forward to exert a claim on the boxes ( and if so - why is the party storing its possessions on government property when other parties and citizens have to rent mini-storage for that type of stuff)
Now Stockwell Day might have the best claim of ownership since he was the leader of Reform/Alliance/Opposition at the time the paperwork was generated but anybody hear him stand up in the House and ask for his stuff back ?
So if there are smoking guns in those boxes none of the above would want to claim ownership because it would make it that much harder to maintain " I wasn't aware of that memo, meeting, letter, etc." .
Wild speculation or not, claims of privilege, confidentiality and contempt ring hollow when nobody is actually stepping up to the plate to claim they have actual ownership and the privity that comes with it.
Nobody's willing to come forward and say those belong to me. They've sat unclaimed for more than a year with in a space where the Opposition does have a proprietary interest. That is abandonment. The Opposition has not committed a foul because, in law, they now own those papers and can do with them as they please
Posted by: Nbob at March 30, 2007 02:12 AM
Nbob, are you a prelaw student trying to impress us? It's not working.
Wild speculation or not, claims of privilege, confidentiality and contempt ring hollow when nobody is actually stepping up to the plate to claim they have actual ownership and the privity that comes with it.
Umm, the "privity" does not just belong to the conservative, reform, or alliance parties, as you imply. The boxes apparently held employee records. Those are the people whose privacy has really been violated by this.
And abandonment, to the best of my knowledge, requires that the owner of an article knowingly relinquishes the article. I hardly think a box left behind by the movers qualifies. So that is a BS statement you are making that the opposition legally owns those papers.
If my personnel file was in that box, I'd be slapping a lawsuit on the Holland, Jennings, and the Liberal party. Just because they are acting like pompous asses.
Posted by: mecheng at March 30, 2007 02:42 AM
mecheng- dude you be da one that reeks of prelaw. Hint: Always read the law before you start spouting it.
>And abandonment, to the best of my knowledge, requires that the owner of an article knowingly relinquishes the article.
Wrong- abandonment is used to determine whether or not an owner has knowingly relinquished the article. It's your property so you are responsible for it ( surely, I don't have to explain that to conservatives ). If I come upon a box in my new house I have no way of knowing wheather or not it was "knowingly relinquished" or left behind but it is not my obligation to track down the owner and find out. My only obligation is not to convert it to my own use until n period of time has passed.
The obligation is on the property owner to keep track of his property. The law assumes that If the owner conducts a reasonable search then the item will be found with in the specified period or the search will be exhausted and the item will be truly "lost" - i.e. without an owner.
>The boxes apparently held employee records. Those are the people whose privacy has really been violated by this.
Part Right. The employees would have some expectation of privacy but privacy rights, like copyright, are seperate from ownership of the actual item.
I own a John Coltrain CD but I can't duplicate the songs or broadcast the music contained on the CD without getting in to trouble. The Liberals now own those employee records but if they were to start xroxing them or distributing any of the information they could well face a civil action.
Hey while we're playing conspiracy -theory - hoot 'n nanny. Some enterprising journalist or blogger should check the court records for the Hart v. Reform lawsuit. See if it progressed to the point where Reform , or any of the defendants , filed an affidavit of documents. If so, check to see under what part the relevant documents found in those boxes are listed under. Then find out what day Day moved out. I'm sure it's nothing but if there is something there you'll see it .
Posted by: Nbob at March 30, 2007 04:05 AM
Theres no sense overcomplicating this issue.
Heres what should have happened:
The office in question was vacated,
The people who are responsible for the move are notified.
Among the items to be moved are the cartons in question, clearly marked as to destination.
The new occupant of the office arrives and finds that these cartons have not yet been moved
The new occupant of this office calls the movers and tells them to get these dam cartons out of the way.
Some of the above obviously never happened. We need to know why.
Posted by: Lee at March 30, 2007 05:24 AM
@Nbob,
Only a member of the LPOC would steal something off of the back of a truck and then try and call it abandonment...
Posted by: langmann at March 30, 2007 05:26 AM
"The new occupant of this office calls the movers and tells them to get these damn boxes out of the way."
Or......
The new occupants of this office sees the boxes and, pissed at having been voted out as the "natural governing party" decides to check out the boxes to see what is in them. Upon seeing Conservative papers, they decide to just slip the boxes into a closet for further inspection and possible use against their opponents.
Hmmmmmmmm.......
Posted by: Alberta Girl at March 30, 2007 06:49 AM
The new occupants of this office sees the boxes and, pissed at having been voted out as the "natural governing party" decides to check out the boxes to see what is in them. Upon seeing Conservative papers, they decide to just slip the boxes into a closet for further inspection and possible use against their opponents.
That's exactly what Scott Reid is accusing the Liberals of doing.
Posted by: Steve Janke at March 30, 2007 07:26 AM
The rot in the Liberal Party goes to the core, there seems no end to the sleaze. Now we are dealing with a mess in the RCMP that went down under their watch.
Day wants to get to the bottom of the mess quickly but the Libs and Dippers want to drag it out over years. Why?
Well take a guess. Election overlap, when present and former top Liberals will have to testify?
That's it folks!
It's only our money, let's drag it out, pay a fortune, help out the dying Liberal Party.
Posted by: Libby at March 30, 2007 08:38 AM
HOLLANDGATE .... ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Posted by: Observer at March 30, 2007 10:39 AM
Nbob
I'm no lawyer (my family would disown me) but isn't the fact that the Conservatives went through the trouble of boxing up the files and labelling them for the movers pretty compelling evidence that the files were not "knowingly relinquished"?
It's not like the CPC just left a bunch of files lying around then left with no forwarding address. The boxes were packed up and labelled to be moved upstairs. Any reasonable person would know that the owner of those boxes intended to keep them and any decent person would return them without ever opening them. If you don't get that, then you must be a liberal.
This is not really like moving into a home previously owned by someone you don't know who left a bunch of their crap behind. (Though even in that case the new owner has to make a reasonable effort to contact the previous owner if they want to protect themselves from legal action - I know of a case like this). This is more like doing a re-organization in an office.
The occupants of an office do not own the contents of that office unless they pay for it themselves. Unless you own the business, the files in your office belong to your employer, not to you. The fact that someone else's files are still in your office when you move in does not make them your property, any more than your own files are your property. You may manage the files, but only as per the direction of your employer, otherwise you may be subject to disciplinary action.
If I move offices in my place of work (which has happened to me more than once), and there are boxes left behind from the previous occupant, I either bring them the boxes or call him/her and remind them they are there. I don't rifle through them. I don't dig for dirt that I may use later. I don't neglect to tell him/her that they are there for over a year then pull them out and charge him/her with negligence. I know who's boxes they are, for goodness sake: I work with the person every day, I see them regularly, they work just down the hall. What kind of a person would I have to be to do anything but return them promptly? Mark Holland, I guess.
No wonder he looks like the seed of Chucky in his official photo.
Posted by: Laura at March 31, 2007 02:38 AM
 
|
|
