thetorontobulletin.com Blog

Sue an MP, stifle an MP

May 13, 2008 on 5:42 pm | In Social & Political Issues | No Comments

The hand-picked integrity official in dictator-in-waiting Steve Harper’s Ottawa has done him service in his quest to control or eliminate every snippet of information from or about his regime.

Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson was a product of the regime controlled by the Rightly Despised Brian Mulroney, who went down in flames after a decade of mismanaging the Canadian government.

Now there is suddenly the opportunity to serve both her old and new Tory benefactors, so the new conflict of interest and ethics commissioner has unintentionally rewarded both men.

Mulroney launched a lawsuit against Nova Scotia MP Robert Thibault for accusing him of taking money from weapons dealer Karlheinz Schreiber while Mulroney was still prime minister. He actually wasn’t the PM at the time Thibault mentioned, but merely an MP.

That scenario is of course embarrassing to Steve as well as Brian.

So the question quickly arose when Thibault, a member of the house ethics committee, tried to question Brian about this.

A Tory committee member objected that Thibault had a conflict of interest because he was being sued by Brian. So the matter went before Mary. Yes, the ethics commissioner proclaimed, Thibault—the bulldog questioner of Brian—would have to go back to the doghouse because he could possibly benefit personally in some manner because he was being sued.

What a beauty of a ruling! For Brian it shuts up a critical nuisance. For Steve, it further sets the principle that his vaunted promise of greater accountability is a cruel joke on the Canadian public. It permits the mere filing of a lawsuit to shut up an elected member of parliament.

Now in reality, Mary’s ruling was—how to say this gently—naïve. Her ruling was that the member, Thibault, had a possible personal gain from being able to question Brian, who was suing him, and therefore it would be unethical for him to speak.

Of course by that criterion any member who hoped to benefit his or her reelection by speaking out or asking a question would also be in conflict of interest. Since nearly all members seek to be reelected, nearly all members are in a near-perpetual state of conflict of interest.

Great work, Mary! You’ve clarified the issue magnificently.
Frank Touby