Breaking News: Conservative Party staffers serve libel notice on Liberals [confirmed]
From a trusted source who knows, news that just adds to Stephane Dion's troubles. The Conservatives have served notice that they intend to pursue a libel action against the Liberal Party.
Update: Confirmed
Update: Details in the mainstream press, and how this links to the Sponsorship Scandal.
The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of criminal acts with regards to the campaign financing controversy:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper challenged Liberal leader Stephane Dion to demonstrate the "courage of his convictions" yesterday and repeat, outside the protection of parliamentary immunity, allegations of election campaign illegality by Conservative staffers.
As the Liberal party continued to press the government over a $1.2-million election advertising scheme under investigation by the federal elections commissioner, Mr. Dion bluntly claimed Conservatives "broke the law" and said MPs, cabinet ministers and political advisers have been implicated.
Mr. Dion made the statement shortly before his office released a letter the party wrote to elections commissioner William Corbett asking him to expand his investigation to nine other Conservative riding campaigns.
Of course, what is said inside the House of Commons is covered by parliamentary immunity, but that hasn't kept the Liberals quiet outside of the House:
The Liberal statement released outside the Commons referred only to an "apparent" scheme to violate election spending limits.
I guess the Conservative Party has decided that the weasel words weren't enough to stand up to legal scrutiny, and have delivered a notice to pursue a libel action. I'm not certain who has been named in the notice, but I would guess certain top officials in the Liberal Party as well as the Liberal Party itself. I would guess that the action might also avoid naming MPs in order to sidestep the immunity issue.
I haven't heard if the action has actually been filed with the courts yet, but I would be surprised if it was. Normally the parties keep this out of the courts for a time while the "intent to file" is studied and a response drafted. Indeed, there is a formal process even at this stage, with time limits and waiting periods for responses and forms for legally acceptable responses. My understanding is that the notice was only delivered today, so really, there is no way for it to be with the courts yet.
I have had some...experience...in these sorts of matters. [By the way, I'm still working my way through the bills on that, so feel free to hit me with a donation (upper right of the page).]
But then libel actions between private individuals are different -- they lack the political dynamic at play here.
Stay tuned. Hopefully we can get confirmation of this, one way or the other. [Update: Confirmed]
Addendum: Is this why things have gotten quiet?
Update: The question of the alleged libel action being filed by the Conservatives against the Liberals is complicated by the question of parliamentary immunity. Anything an MP says on the floor of the House of Commons cannot be used as the basis of a libel suit.
So the key is not to say anything libelous outside of the House of Commons.
So consider this exchange during Question Period on Tuesday, October 23:
Hon. Stephane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada has ruled that the Conservatives broke the law. Individuals implicated in the scheme are now MPs, cabinet ministers and senior advisers to the Conservative government.
The question remains about the Prime Minister himself. What did he know about this scheme and when did he know it?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has responded to these accusations on many occasions.
Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition knows that he makes such allegations in this chamber under the protection of parliamentary privilege. I encourage him to have the courage of his convictions. If he believes what he has said, he should make these accusations outside the chamber where those whom he is libelling and slandering have recourse to the courts to hold him responsible for—
Hon. Stephane Dion:
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows very well that we have a press release that said exactly what I just said. It was a decision that has been ruled on by Elections Canada. We did not invent it.
The law has been broken. What does the Prime Minister know about this?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I did not realize a Liberal news release was the final word on the law.
We happen to believe that our election financing activities are entirely legal. We know they are because they are what the law permits and they are consistent with the practices of other political parties in Canada.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have already named the people involved outside the House. Elections Canada has already named the people involved outside the House. Even Conservative candidates have named the people involved outside the House. That is not the issue.
Why is the government not telling the truth inside the House?
So Stephane Dion references a press release, and then Michael Ignatieff directly uses the phrase "outside the House".
Yesterday, Stephane Dion compounded the problem:
Hon. Stephane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister challenged me to repeat comments I made in the House outside the House. I did.
It is now the Prime Minister's turn. I challenge him to tell Canadians what role he played in the Conservative electoral scheme. What did he know? When did he know it?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Walter Mitty over there is having some delusions of grandeur.
What he said outside the House fell far short of the kinds of accusations that have been made inside the House by his party. The reality is that he was given an opportunity to repeat those kinds of personal attacks and he just could not get it done.
So over and over again, the Liberals are challenged to repeat their allegations outside of the House of Commons, and over and over again the Liberals insist that they already did.
What the hell kind of strategy is that?
Update: Confirmed
Update: Details in the mainstream press, and how this links to the Sponsorship Scandal.
Check out other entries from the In-and-Out category
Results will open in a new window.
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
Stephen Harper Conservative Party Stephane Dion Liberal Party Canada campaign financing libel parliamentary immunity
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Hope they pursue it, sue them for their last ten cents, pathetic lot, no money no smarts. Notice Harper is ignoring Dion's questioning on it in HOC.
This is called petty politics, about all the Liberals have to offer these days. Harper has more important things on his mind, like running the country.
Posted by: Libby at October 25, 2007 10:16 AM
I feel that this "Parliamentary immunity" privilege is being abused. I don't think most people watching CPAC really understand it. So the various parties can fling garbage at each other without really being accountable for what they say.
Posted by: Joanne (TB) at October 25, 2007 10:18 AM
Here is my suggestion for what they should do. Set the amount at $40 million sought in damages, explaining that is the amount Gomery said could not be accounted for in Adscam.
Let the people of Canada know that any judgement up to and including the $40 million will be put into government coffers for the adscam loss. If this is not possible the money will be donated to Sick Kids Hospital. State Conservatives are mainly interested in defending the false and libelous statements made by the Liberal's.
Posted by: paulsstuff at October 25, 2007 10:20 AM
It feels really good to know that I had a hand in this... ;-)
Posted by: Fellow Blogging Tory at October 25, 2007 10:43 AM
Question: The Liberals say something in the House that is libelous but they have Parliamentary immunity. HOWEVER, the media airs the comments, write about it, debate it and give opinions on the libelous comments, bloggers blog about it and political parties put out news releases so the damage is done "outside of the House".
How do the libel laws handle this?
Posted by: Lorraine at October 25, 2007 11:00 AM
That goes to the heart of libel, Lorraine. The fact that everyone talks about it establishes the "damage" part of the lawsuit. For a person or an organization that is very dependent on reputation as part of their business, this could be serious. Suing each person down the line who merely reported on what was spoken in a public venue (such as Parliament) is not allowed. It's not practical and it makes no sense. It is the person who uttered the libelous comment in the first place, in a public space, that is the target. If it is uttered inside of parliament, you're out of luck if you feel like you've been libeled. All you can hope for is political embarrassment if you can establish that the person was wrong. The issue here, of course, is what was uttered (in the form of media releases) by the Liberal Party and not by Liberal MPs. Those aren't covered, but then the Liberals would have been careful with the wording. Maybe the LPC slipped up, or maybe the CPC figures it can win anyway, or maybe the CPC has an interesting argument to make.
You can't make a direct accusation in the House then issue a press release with "alleged" and argue that you made no libelous comment, since the public utterance in the House is perceived as the true statement by the public at large. The press release is the carrier of the libelous comment and is not written under the shield of parliament the way Hansard is, and as such escapes the bounds of parliamentary immunity.
It's an interesting idea if that's at the heart of the matter.
Posted by: Steve Janke at October 25, 2007 11:13 AM
Steve:
Up until yesterday the Lib's had not used the words "illegal" or "broke the law" in reference to their allegations outside of the House. Yesterday they issued a press release (http://www.liberal.ca/story_13251_e.aspx) that said: "'Elections Canada has ruled the Conservatives broke the law in the last election,' said Mr. Ignatieff."
This is exactly what M. Dion said under "privilege" in the House on Tuesday: "Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada has ruled that the Conservatives broke the law." (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=
1&Parl=39&Pub=hansard&Ses=2&DocId=3082936&File=0#Int-2177870) That is when the PM invited M. Dion to speak outside of the Chamber.
Isn't it neat how they attributed the quote to Ignatieff (Dion's main rival). Could this finger pointing be retribution by the pro-Dion forces?
Posted by: Phil at October 25, 2007 11:20 AM
Lorraine, media outlets are permitted to repeat and report on privileged statements made in Parliament (and in the courts). That is called "qualified privilege."
Posted by: Joan Tintor at October 25, 2007 11:34 AM
Wait....how can it be libel when they actually did break the law?
Posted by: at October 25, 2007 11:44 AM
To anonymous. Establishing the truth of an allegation is the best defense against a libel suit. Clearly the CPC firmly believes that on the question of breaking the law, they are on the right of it. The courts have yet to rule on whether the CPC was right or not.
Posted by: Steve Janke at October 25, 2007 11:51 AM
Perhaps Liberals should do the same - there's enough ammunition out there to sink a ship.
What a waste of time - Elections Canada said is was illegal and the Liberals were just pointing it out.
Posted by: Sam at October 25, 2007 12:04 PM
Nice try Conservatives- This lawsuit- if it exists would be laughed out of court. Its merely an attempt by the dictator Harper to silence his critics.
Even so it could be dragged through the courts wasting court time and party money
This blog is the biggest load of tripe I've ever seen.
Harper and company might want to tone down the arrogance a bit- It will come back to bite them in the ass. Sooner than later
Posted by: D at October 25, 2007 12:26 PM
"Perhaps Liberals should do the same - there's enough ammunition out there to sink a ship"
Sure hope you are not talking about Adscam. Liberal's admitted the scam, Gomery found the depth of the scam, and Canadians are still waiting for the money to be returned
The difference here is Elections Canada made a ruling, Conservatives disagreed with it, and have gone to the courts to prove they are right. And all money was declared and accounted for on audits submitted to Elections Canda.
There was not, I repeat not, any money passed in brown paper bags, money kicked back from phony advertising contracts, money spent on campaigns that was never reported because it was in fact illegal money.
Posted by: paulsstuff at October 25, 2007 12:30 PM
I hope they don't land in front of a Liberal-appointed judge ... apprehension of bias perchance ....LOL
Posted by: Observer at October 25, 2007 12:35 PM
Why am I not suprised that Lib trolls can't comprehend the difference between spending your own money in a method that is being disputed on a technicality, and laundering tax payers money through shady firms to get back 'donations' in paper bags.
Posted by: Greg at October 25, 2007 12:42 PM
Wasn't it last fall that Conservatives thought a politician suing for libel - i.e. Gerard Kennedy who was accused of hiring and supporting terrorists, and Denis Coderre re Doan - were whiny whimps who should get thicker skins if they want to be politicians?
Wasn't it only 2 years or so ago that Stephen Harper The Brave accused Martin and the Liberals of gaining benefits from the mob and had close ties to the mob, but he refused to make the same comments "out of the House"?
This is all just political play. The Conservatives won the last election because of Adscam, not their own platform or people's preference for them, and they made accountability their thing. To have that card taken away is huge and they will do anything to counter that.
They will not ever file a lawsuit about this. Guaranteed. Once they file the notice of claim, they've got I think 2 years to file a claim. All they want in the next election (which will be before then) is to say we will be fighting the Liberal accusations in the court and the court will have its say. Obviously, all of the kool-aid drinkers will agree but I think many Canadians will too, including the Conservative-friendly and pliant media.
Posted by: Ted at October 25, 2007 01:04 PM
As far as I remember, Kennedy sued the National Post over an article. If Conservatives commented on the suit please provide a LINK.
As for Coderre, Shane Doan sued him for slanderous remarks Coderre made about him. Again, please provide a link where the Conservatives commented on that lawsuit. Maybe they did, But I don't remember it
Posted by: at October 25, 2007 01:31 PM
Hey Ted you forgot about the Harper Press release, "Martin supports Child Pornography"
Harper is scum
Posted by: D at October 25, 2007 01:58 PM
I love how Van Loan called Steffie Walter Mitty. Priceless. Knowing Steffie, and how daft he is, it flew over his head. That said, this is all just more obfuscation from the Libranos. Notice how different their public statements are from those made during Question Period? Just goes to show they have NO ethics, principles, or morals.
Posted by: Oliver at October 25, 2007 02:08 PM
Is Ted serious? "Conservative-friendly and pliant media"? What colour is the sky in your world Ted?
Posted by: BobinAB at October 25, 2007 02:30 PM
Waste of time. Harper won me over by focusing on bigger issue than this.
Posted by: Jason Bo Green at October 25, 2007 03:15 PM
"D" says Harper is scum. What's the 'D' stand for, Daft, Dense, Desperate or just plain Delusional?
Posted by: Libby at October 25, 2007 03:26 PM
I also blame Peter Milliken, Speaker of the House of Commons, for allowing these types of questions. The issue is about the Conservative Party, not the government. There is a difference. Of course being a Liberal Milliken will allow as much latitude in the questions that he thinks he can get away with.
There is no comparison to Adscam. The Sponsorship scandal was about a secret government program and policy. That's what made the questions in the House relevant.
No wonder Canadians ignore politics and the House of Commons. Anybody watching the charade and feigned outraged of the Liberals would be asking themselves where's the beef. However, the Liberals are so bereft of policy and an inability to attack the government they are resorting to these sleazy shenanigans.
I hope the Conservative party sues their asses off. Maybe then the hapless leader of the Liberals will get the message.
Posted by: hollinm at October 25, 2007 04:18 PM
I've asked this before on other sites but never get an answer so with all the legal beagles commenting here I'll ask it again. With all the allegations launched at the Liberal party, (Adscam, Radwanski, Jane Stewart, Judy Sgro, etc, etc.) why has no one launched a class action suit on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer. The Adscam scandal in itself is reason enough. The behind the scenes payback amounted to nothing short of money laundering and a government that is involved in this has gained power through illegal means as such any laws passed in their tenure should be suspended and the guilty parties should be held to account. Perhaps the biggest boondoggle that occurred during this tenure is the long gun registration and who knows where all the money went on that fiasco. The $1 million that the Liberals are making so much todo about is indeed small potatoes when compared to the massive rip-offs that the Liberals have conducted over the last decade or more. So how about it any legal beagles out there that can wrap their minds around a class action suit. Just wondering?
Posted by: Antenor at October 25, 2007 05:39 PM
Ahhh for the old days of North American politics...when it was really interesting before pussy-boy lawyers made loudmouthed loars immine from their craft...between 1790 and 1844 there were over 70 dulas and fisticuff matches between politicians...all leagal affairs of honor.
What the frik is this pansy assed threats stuff.
If someone disses your rep...take him out to 10 paces and dispatch the swine with a pistol.
Steffie honey...pistols or swords..wazzit gonna be Hon?
Posted by: WL Macakenzie Redux at October 25, 2007 06:00 PM
This isn't adscam, but we do have election laws on spending limits and the scheme was large enough to be detected. It seems pretty straight forward. Those same ads were effective federal ads for the CPC without the small print candidate's name added, and they remained effective ads for the federal CPC with the small print tagline added at the end. They ran them in good federal locations, not in the local ridings. From all the dollars going in and out, they got caught. They should have just paid up since it all seems pretty obvious to anyone looking at it. Even some Conservatives said they knew the money was going to federal ads. Their lawsuit against EC is a waste of money and makes them look worse.
Setting up large schemes to get around the election financing rules undermines the whole election process. This is not a technicality. Had Harper simply said, we thought this was legitimate, but we take full responsibility and it won't be repeated, it would still look bad and people would be a bit suspicious in the next election, but it wouldn't be that big a deal. However, fighting the obvious this way makes them look wilfully criminal. Who is ever going to trust any of their accounting/financing if they actually think this is how things should work?
Posted by: catherine at October 25, 2007 06:25 PM
What Antenor said , needs a response .
Posted by: Bill D. Cat at October 25, 2007 06:27 PM
Posted by: D at October 25, 2007 01:58 PM
Actually 'D', I agree with the statement that Paul Martin supports child pornography as does his party. THEY invented 'house arrest' and ALLOWED serious charges like child pornography, child abuse, and many violent crimes to use this as a sentence. THEY also allowed 'conditional sentences', early parole and bale to stand as sentences for these crimes. Liberal appointed judges wasted no time in handing these 'non-sentences' out. If that isn't support, what is? THAT is what Mr. Harper was referring to and you know it. Only after too many years under a liberal government could someone actually point a gun at an officer, threaten the officer, get arrested, make bail immediately and finally be given a conditional sentence.
L
Posted by: Leasa at October 25, 2007 06:39 PM
The headline "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornography?" had a question mark. It was weasles like Scott Reid who made a big deal of this and the body of the news release reasked the question because Paul Martin had wanted to uphold no charges against child pornography pictures considered "art" by a well known pervert who was in court about this issue.
Posted by: Lorraine at October 25, 2007 07:42 PM
Much ado about nothing. The Conservatives are not going to sue the Liberals and make this a never-ending story for the media. Buckler cannot be that dumb. Harper cannot be that desperate.
Posted by: at October 25, 2007 08:46 PM
Catherine says: "They ran them in good federal locations, not in the local ridings." I don't follow your point. What's a "federal location" but not a "local riding"??? And I believe it is possible that network advertising may run outside of a local area even where the target is local. It may be that the election spending laws are an issue here, but I think it is very hard to draw a line between what type of advertising supports a local candidate and what supports the National Party. Don't local candidates benefit from ads that feature their leader or their party?
Posted by: LLucas at October 25, 2007 10:16 PM
Oliver, you're right, doubt Van Loan calling Dion "Walter Mitty" would ring a bell with him. He may have to turn to his second in command and arch rival Iggy to ask him who ees thees Walter Meetty,(Dion speak)?
Posted by: Libby at October 27, 2007 08:03 AM
Abstract paintings
Angel painting
animal paintings
ballet paintings
beach painting
Boat painting
building painting
Children painting
Christ painting
church painting
City painting
Cottage painting
Dancer painting
field painting
Floral paintings
Garden painting
Hunting paintings
impressionist painting
Knight painting
Lady painting
Landscape painting
Lighthouse paintings
Music painting
Nude painting
Oriental paintings
Piano painting
Seascapes paintings
Still Life paintings
street painting
sunset painting
Tropical paintings
Venice paintings
Village painting
wine paintingsalvador dali paintings
thomas kinkade paintings
pablo picasso paintings
vincent van gogh paintings
claude monet paintings
diego rivera paintings
Posted by: aswkin at July 17, 2008 09:30 AM
 
|
|
