On April 10, 2020, Marwin Tabbara, the Liberal MP for Kitchener South—Hespeler, was arrested and charged with two counts of assault, one count of break and enter, one count of commit an indictable offence and one count of criminal harassment.
According to police documents, Tabbara allegedly began watching a Guelph home of an unidentified man and woman on January 1, 2020 and spent so much time there he made the female occupant fear for her safety. His disturbing behaviour ended the day of his arrest. The exact dates of the two alleged assaults, which both took place at this residence, was not released to the media.
Marwin Tabbara did not disclose his arrest to his constituents, his political party, or the Prime Minister.
“As we said, I and my office only learned about the serious charges against this MP on Friday,” Justin Trudeau said. “No one in my party or my organization knew anything about them until Friday, and when we found out about these serious charges.”
Tabbara didn’t resigned from the Liberal caucus when the criminal charges against him became public knowledge. He vows to stay on as a Member of Parliament, though his actions show a profound lack of integrity – an element most consider essential to the character of an elected official.
Marwan Tabbara’s Blatant Hypocrisy
As my image above says, Tabbara is the ultimate hypocrite who cannot see his own hypocrisy.
From his June 5th statement:
As a proud Canadian who came to this country with his family to escape the violence of war, I deplore violence in all its forms.
In addition to my work and my commitment to human rights in Canada and abroad, I personally believe strongly in the right of every individual to live a life free of the hurt and trauma of physical, verbal or emotional abuse.
Right.
Tabbara deplores violence, physical, verbal and emotional abuse unless he’s the one committing said violence, physical, verbal and emotional abuse.
Then, apparently, it’s perfectly okay.
[See Tabbara’s full statement at the bottom of this commentary]
Lack of Police Disclosure
The Guelph Police Service did not disclose to the public a sitting Member of Parliament was arrested and charged with a crime of violence against two individuals.
[see my commentary on the arrest of Gerry Hawes, another member of Team Trudeau, on charges of child pornography coming tomorrow.]
It’s obvious why Tabbara would try to hide the fact he was arrested for a violent crime, but why would the Guelph Police Service keep the arrest of a sitting Member of Parliament hushed up?
Great question.
On June 11, 2020, the Guelph Police Service issued the following statement about Marwin Tabbara’s arrest:
The Guelph Police Service has received numerous media inquiries with respect to the matter of the charges laid against Mr. Marwan Tabbara, MP for the riding of Kitchener South-Hespeler on April 10, 2020.
The Guelph Police Service adheres to the authorities as set out within s.41 of the Police Services Act and Reg. 265/98 thereunder for purposes of releasing information to the Public.
Daily Media Releases do not capture a comprehensive summary of all calls attended to by our members. In this case, the arrest of Mr. Tabbara was not brought to the attention of the media office.
The Guelph Police Service will issue no further statements with respect to this matter.
Section 41 of the Ontario Police Services Act deals with annual reporting requirements. Regulation 265/98 deals with disclosure of personal information.
- (1) A chief of police or his or her designate may disclose personal information, as described in subsection (2), about an individual to any person if the individual has been charged with, convicted or found guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada), the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) or any other federal or provincial Act. O. Reg. 265/98, s. 3 (1).
The key to Regulation 265/98 is the word “may”.
A chief of police or his or her designate may disclose personal information…
There is no requirement to release any information about any person arrested and charged with a criminal offence.
It’s odd the Guelph Police Service would remain silent on the arrest of a Member of Parliament, but routinely issue press releases on the arrests of impaired drivers, drug dealers, violent criminals arrested with illegal guns, and child pornographers.
Robyn Urback nails it in her June 10, 2020, column in The Globe and Mail:
“Because the accused cannot be trusted to put the public’s welfare above his own, the onus is on police – whose job it is to maintain public order – to ensure the community is notified and updated.”
It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s government policy.
While this policy is out of step with many other G7 nations, it’s currently the law of the land in Ontario. Perhaps this is something we can petition the Ontario Provincial Legislature to change.
Quietly Removed
At the time of his arrest, Marwin Tabbara was chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. He was quietly removed from that role on June 11th. He is now listed as a member of the committee.
He now sits as an independent, having voluntarily resigned from the Liberal caucus days after the news of his arrest became public.
Parliamentarians Facing Criminal Charges
House of Commons Procedure and Practice is “the key procedural authorities used by Members of the Canadian House of Commons.”
Section 3, Privileges and Immunities, discusses an MP’s privilege with respect to criminal law.
The special privileges of Members never were intended to set them above the law; rather, the intention was to give them certain exemptions from the law in order that they might properly execute the responsibilities of their position.
Members of Parliament are subject to the criminal law except in respect of words spoken or acts done in the context of a parliamentary proceeding.
However, it would be difficult to envisage a criminal act which would fit into or be a part of a parliamentary proceeding.
Therefore, it goes without saying that if Members are charged with infractions of the criminal law, they must abide by the due process of law. To do otherwise would show contempt for the Canadian system of justice.
The Library of Parliament published a research paper on parliamentarians charged with criminal offences on November 15, 2017. That report states the following:
Whenever a member of the Senate or the House of Commons is charged with or convicted of a criminal offence, questions invariably arise as to the effect of such charges or convictions on the person’s right to continue as a member of the Senate or the House.
In general, the laying of criminal charges against a member of the Senate or the House of Commons has no immediate legal implications with respect to their right to remain in office, with the exception of a procedure applicable to senators in certain situations.
However, in the case of a conviction for a criminal offence, the legal implications with respect to the parliamentarian’s right to keep their seat and their future eligibility are more serious.
In all cases, both houses of Parliament retain the power to expel members, whether or not they have been convicted of a criminal offence.
Although the legislation does not provide for any automatic consequences following the laying of criminal charges against a senator or a member of Parliament, both houses of Parliament may take preventive disciplinary action to protect the dignity and integrity of the institution.
Both the Senate and the House of Commons have the authority to order a leave of absence or to suspend a member for a period that may extend to the life of a parliamentary session.
In the House of Commons, no member has ever been suspended because of criminal charges laid against them.
In specific circumstances, a Member of Parliament may be removed from office, but only if they meet the requirements spelled out in Section 750 of the Criminal Code.
750 (1) Where a person is convicted of an indictable offence for which the person is sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more and holds, at the time that person is convicted, an office under the Crown or other public employment, the office or employment forthwith becomes vacant.
Two elements must be met.
- The individual must be convicted of an indictable offence, and
- The individual must be sentenced to two years or more in prison.
The actual sentence, not the maximum prison term possible, is the determining factor.
If the Member of Parliament is charged and convicted of a summary offence, s. 750 does not apply. Similarly, if they are convicted of an indictable offence, but sentenced to less than two years in prison, s. 750 also does not apply.
[Former] Liberal MP Marwan Tabbara’s Statement
June 5, 2020
As a proud Canadian who came to this country with his family to escape the violence of war, I deplore violence in all its forms.
In addition to my work and my commitment to human rights in Canada and abroad, I personally believe strongly in the right of every individual to live a life free of the hurt and trauma of physical, verbal or emotional abuse.
I am currently facing criminal charges which arose in April.
There are mandatory steps that must be taken to address a criminal case, and those steps take time, particularly with delays due to the pandemic.
Meanwhile, I continue to receive counselling and treatment for anxiety and depression, which I have been living with for some time.
Other than to state unequivocally that every incident of violence is unacceptable and inexcusable, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further while this matter is before the court.
In the interim, I will be stepping back from the Liberal caucus.
Meanwhile, I will continue to work diligently for my constituents, as their Member of Parliament, assisting them in accessing services and benefits to which they are entitled from their federal government.
“Members of Parliament are subject to the criminal law except in respect of words spoken or acts done in the context of a parliamentary proceeding.”
F that! That permission slip to break criminal law needs to repealed ASAP.
“He vows to stay on as a Member of Parliament, though his actions show a profound lack of integrity – an element most consider essential to the character of an elected official.”
Based on those recently elected it would seem that “few” rather than “most” consider integrity when voting.
Too much of government appears to be infested with corruption and dishonesty.