OTTAWA—The trial of Sen. Mike Duffy is expected to take 41 days this Spring.

Duffy's fraud trial date has been set for April, and is expected to stretch until June. Duffy's lawyer, Donald Bayne, said in an Ottawa courtroom that his client will plead not guilty to all charges.

“As we've said from the start, we trust that the evidence will show Sen. Duffy is innocent of criminal charges,” Bayne told reporters outside the Ottawa Courthouse on Tuesday morning.

The trial will commence on April 7, and is expected to wrap up on June 19, just months before the next scheduled federal election. Bayne did not take further questions.

Duffy faces 31 charges related to his expense claims, including fraud and breach of trust.

Bayne had told reporters last Tuesday that “it’s too early” to rule out calling “any potential witness” who may be relevant to Duffy’s defence, including the prime minister.

“But please understand, this isn’t being run as a personal or political vendetta,” said Bayne.

There are many strange elements of the RCMP case against Senator Mike Duffy.

Nevertheless, the real possibility that a sitting prime minister could be summoned to testify about the controversial $90,000 payment by his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, to Duffy to cover questionable Senate expenses prompted a nasty exchange between Harper and Opposition leader Tom Mulcair in the Commons, and legal experts to weigh in.

A number of protections — or legal privileges — are afforded to MPs and senators, and government officials, as they go about their work.

Many legal experts agree the one most likely to be invoked by the prime minister, should he wish to avoid testifying, is parliamentary privilege. It means an MP cannot be forced to testify in a civil or criminal court proceeding while Parliament is sitting or 40 days before or after a parliamentary session.

“The whole idea of all that is that nothing is more important than an MP doing their job in Parliament,” said University of Ottawa law professor Adam Dodek.

Dodek, along with former House of Commons law clerk Rob Walsh, and Wade Wright, an expert on Crown privileges, said parliamentary privilege might allow Harper to resist any subpoena.

Walsh suggested that it’s “an open legal question” whether Bayne could convince a court that it should not trump Duffy’s right to a full airing of facts in his case.

Traditionally, the privilege was meant to protect the workings of Parliament, and the 40-day period during which it applies before or after a parliamentary session was to ensure an MP could get his or her affairs in order and “get to London” to work, said Walsh, adding that “long shoulder season” is less relevant now.

Certainly, Harper would be free to waive the privilege if he chooses, experts agree. And he would be unlikely to persuade a court another kind of privilege applies: that given to lawyers and their clients.

Dodek, who wrote the definitive text, Solicitor-Client Privilege, dismissed the likelihood that Harper could claim solicitor-client privilege over his conversations with Wright, saying it would be “problematic.”

“In order for solicitor-client privilege to apply, it’s not just that you’re talking to somebody who happens to be a lawyer; the lawyer has to be acting as a professional legal adviser. For Nigel Wright it’s very hard to imagine how in his job as chief of staff he would be acting as a professional legal adviser.”

The NDP moved to frame the whole question as a political choice, not a legal one.

“Will the prime minister hide behind parliamentary privilege, or will he testify?” demanded NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

Harper dismissed out of hand the possibility he’d be subpoenaed, suggesting — as his office had — that he has nothing relevant to add.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“Obviously, if we read the (RCMP) investigator’s report, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that I would do that,” replied Harper.

Wade Wright said while the prime minister would be “legally entitled to claim parliamentary privilege,” Harper’s denial that he has anything relevant to add may be as much about building “the political case to make that claim.”

“The relevance claim is not so much a legal issue as it is building a political case for invoking parliamentary privilege should the prime minister wish to avoid appearing” to testify in court, he said.

With files from Tonda MacCharles

Read more about: