- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,208
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
Stephen Harper’s former in-house legal adviser testified Thursday that he was “taken aback” when the prime minister rejected his advice on whether Mike Duffy was qualified to sit as a senator for Prince Edward Island.
Benjamin Perrin was tasked by Harper’s then-chief of staff, Nigel Wright, to investigate the qualification issue and did so by examining the “concept of residency.”
Wright told Perrin he was “gravely concerned” that Duffy could be legally considered a resident of Ontario, an obvious disqualification for someone sitting as a P.E.I. senator.
At the time, in February 2013, the Prime Minister’s Office was desperately trying to quash the Duffy scandal by getting him to repay his expenses and issue a public mea culpa in exchange for, among other things, a public statement by the PMO that he, and other Harper Senate appointees, were all qualified to represent their provinces.
It was clear, said Perrin, that the PMO and Senate leadership objective was to “protect” senators.
“In reading through the entire chain (of emails) forwarded to me it was very clear to me that the objective being sought was to ensure that the test for Constitutional residence under the Constitution Act would not disenfranchise any currently sitting Conservative senators.”
Perrin, a University of British Columbia law professor, is testifying at the trial of Duffy, who has pleaded not guilty to 31 charges of breach of trust, bribery and fraud related to expense claims including claims that Cavendish, P.E.I. was his primary residence and not Ottawa, the city in which he has lived since the 1970s.
Perrin said he sent the “relevant constitutional provisions” in an email to Wright and two other senior Harper staffers.
“I identified that it is the Senate who determines whether a senator was eligible to sit or not and … that a senator should be resident in the province of their appointment.”
Perrin, who worked at the PMO on an unpaid leave of absence from UBC from April 10, 2012 until he resigned March 27, 2013, testified that his memo was returned by Wright with minor changes and sent to Harper.
“It would have been approved by the senior leadership and then the prime minister provides us with what is known as a ‘return’ – he literally writes on the memo itself.”
Harper took the position, testified Perrin, that an 1867 clause in the Constitution Act that a senator must own at least $4,000 of property in the province of their appointment to qualify for the Senate was sufficient.
“I was immediately taken aback at the prime minister’s decision that if you simply own $4,000 of property that made you a resident.
“Both legally and practically, it seems untenable,” Perrin added. “I would not be able to consider myself a resident of Nunavut – having never visited there – simply by having $4,000 of real property.”
Perrin said he replied “as diplomatically as possible” through the PMO chain of command that the view taken by the prime minister was not consistent with basic legal interpretation and that “I didn’t agree with it.”
Perrin lost the argument.
“The office obviously acts on the direction of the prime minister so his written word stands,” he said. “So from that point forward … the position of the office becomes what the prime minister directed – that if a person owns $4,000 worth of property in the province of their appointment they would be deemed to be eligible.”
ccobb@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/chriscobb
查看原文...
Benjamin Perrin was tasked by Harper’s then-chief of staff, Nigel Wright, to investigate the qualification issue and did so by examining the “concept of residency.”
Wright told Perrin he was “gravely concerned” that Duffy could be legally considered a resident of Ontario, an obvious disqualification for someone sitting as a P.E.I. senator.
At the time, in February 2013, the Prime Minister’s Office was desperately trying to quash the Duffy scandal by getting him to repay his expenses and issue a public mea culpa in exchange for, among other things, a public statement by the PMO that he, and other Harper Senate appointees, were all qualified to represent their provinces.
It was clear, said Perrin, that the PMO and Senate leadership objective was to “protect” senators.
“In reading through the entire chain (of emails) forwarded to me it was very clear to me that the objective being sought was to ensure that the test for Constitutional residence under the Constitution Act would not disenfranchise any currently sitting Conservative senators.”
Perrin, a University of British Columbia law professor, is testifying at the trial of Duffy, who has pleaded not guilty to 31 charges of breach of trust, bribery and fraud related to expense claims including claims that Cavendish, P.E.I. was his primary residence and not Ottawa, the city in which he has lived since the 1970s.
Perrin said he sent the “relevant constitutional provisions” in an email to Wright and two other senior Harper staffers.
“I identified that it is the Senate who determines whether a senator was eligible to sit or not and … that a senator should be resident in the province of their appointment.”
Perrin, who worked at the PMO on an unpaid leave of absence from UBC from April 10, 2012 until he resigned March 27, 2013, testified that his memo was returned by Wright with minor changes and sent to Harper.
“It would have been approved by the senior leadership and then the prime minister provides us with what is known as a ‘return’ – he literally writes on the memo itself.”
Harper took the position, testified Perrin, that an 1867 clause in the Constitution Act that a senator must own at least $4,000 of property in the province of their appointment to qualify for the Senate was sufficient.
“I was immediately taken aback at the prime minister’s decision that if you simply own $4,000 of property that made you a resident.
“Both legally and practically, it seems untenable,” Perrin added. “I would not be able to consider myself a resident of Nunavut – having never visited there – simply by having $4,000 of real property.”
Perrin said he replied “as diplomatically as possible” through the PMO chain of command that the view taken by the prime minister was not consistent with basic legal interpretation and that “I didn’t agree with it.”
Perrin lost the argument.
“The office obviously acts on the direction of the prime minister so his written word stands,” he said. “So from that point forward … the position of the office becomes what the prime minister directed – that if a person owns $4,000 worth of property in the province of their appointment they would be deemed to be eligible.”
ccobb@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/chriscobb
查看原文...
