Look at that, citing executive parliamentary privilege as a way to cover up shady partisan shenanigans.
Get some details from shamelessly anti-Harper (and thus, completely Chris-approved) site HarperIndex.ca:
Allan Riddell case contradicts accountability promises, threatens damage
Stephen Harper’s invoking Parliamentary privilege, to avoid testifying in a defamation suit brought against him and the party by long-time Conservative Alan Riddell, exposes serious contradictions between Harper’s sanctimonious stated positions and his actual practices in the realm of cleaning up politics.
[…]
By invoking Parliamentary privilege, no defamation action can be brought against Harper until the government falls — or possibly until Parliament is prorogued — possibly never.
Harper faces difficult contradictions on this matter. He campaigned for office pledging to clean up politics in the wake of Liberal corruption scandals. He abhorred backroom deals and dirty tricks, touting transparency and making accountability one of his five key priorities. Harper presents himself as a democratic reformer, but in the Riddell case, it appears his organization has run roughshod over party loyalists, paid at least one candidate not to run, and then allegedly reneged on the payment. It would be damaging if the details of the case involved with the nomination of the Conservatives’ star ethical whistle-blower involved details that called into question the party’s own ethics.
