Rob Walsh

Married, daughter, lawyer, reader, dog walker, marathoner, retired. Former Law Clerk, House of Commons.

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@luvcaffeine Yes, the PM automatically receives top security clearance. Classified info belongs to the Crown/Government and the PM is head of the Government. After all, the GG (the Crown) appoints the PM. Absurd to require PM to get security clearance.

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@natnewswatch @acoyne Yes, but not for purposes of making them available to a third party such as the RCMP.

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@RobertFife Isn't the Conservative motion under debate to refer the issue to the Procedure & House Affairs Committee? Didn't the Government earlier suggest this? What's the problem?

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@RobertFife The purpose of the House's privileged power to demand the production of documents (from anyone) is for purposes of its own proceedings where the legal rights of affected individuals would be protected by parliamentary privilege.

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@RobertFife IMHO it is an abuse of its powers for the House to use it's power to demand and get documents from the Government in order to transfer them to a third party (RCMP) that wouldn't otherwise receive them or to compel the Government to give documents to the third party.

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@sunnshiiny IMHO - Arguably, MP's who have taken an oath of confidentiality re classified info have waived their parliamentary protection of free speech; other MP's have not, however. The privilege of free speech belongs to the House and is constitutional.

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@joshgessner ....fewer f****.....

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@joshgessner ....Fewer....

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@joshgessner ...fewer strikes....

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@Bratt_world @MercedesGlobal @LagasseSubstack Yes

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@MercedesGlobal @EmmMacfarlane I'm not saying parliamentary privilege doesn't need some limitations. For example, the House should waive its privileges of free speech (not by legislation) where an MP defames someone by remarks made in the House that are unrelated to a matter of legitimate public interest....6/

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@MercedesGlobal @EmmMacfarlane The mistake here, IMHO, is in the Government involving parliamentarians in national security business and then refusing to allow them to share with their colleagues - or in a court proceeding - what they have learned. Alas, the Crown's horse has been let out of the barn....5/

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@MercedesGlobal @EmmMacfarlane IMHO, the House must not be impeded in the carrying out of it's constitutional function: the free and open debate of matters arising within its constitutional jurisdiction AND it must respect the Crown's function on matters of national security....5/

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@MercedesGlobal @EmmMacfarlane I doubt the courts want to be put in the position where they must adjudicate on matters arising in the course of parliamentary proceedings which are invariably highly partisan political proceedings. The House should be left to sort out & regulate MP's rules of practice...4/

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@MercedesGlobal @EmmMacfarlane Allowing the Government to use ordinary legislation (not a constitutional amendment) to limit MP's parliamentary privileges enables the Government, where it has a majority, to limit the parliamentary powers of the House for their own political purposes.....3/

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@MercedesGlobal @EmmMacfarlane Parl privilege v national security: NS intelligence belongs exclusively to the Crown (the Government). If Crown chooses to share this info it might require an oath of secrecy and then must enforce the oath, not legally limit the rights of MP's in court. Only the House can do this

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@MercedesGlobal @EmmMacfarlane Parl privilege v national security: IMHO, PP should not be modified by legislation as this brings the courts into deciding on PP when PP is by definition within the exclusive control of Parliament. Only the House of Commons should do this.....1/

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@MercedesGlobal @LagasseSubstack Privy councillors

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@OrbitStudios Chantal Hébert is quite right. PP will be walking into a constitutional storm that will defeat him. The notwithstanding clause was not intended for partisan political use. And yes, PP will be pushed into criminalizing abortion and this will only politically criminalize the CPC.

[Rob Walsh @toccataprima]

@AMCinHogtown Is this for real? Does it include alcoholic beverages? Who's paying for it? #cdnpoli #canpoli