Federal public appointments 'highly political' in nature Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien walked a 'fine line,' showed 'poor judgment,' and committed a 'rookie mistake'—not a crime. By CYNTHIA MÜNSTER Published August 10, 2009

View story Email Comments To the Editor

The not guilty verdict delivered last Wednesday in Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien's influence peddling trial reiterates the fact that politicians talk to each other about appointments on a regular basis, which acts as a filter to prevent poor nominations, say a current and former MP.

"Because appointments are made as a result of consensus seeking, no individual can make a promise," said local Ottawa-Orleans, Ont., Conservative MP Royal Galipeau. "You can say, 'I'll support your nomination' but that doesn't make you appointed. It means that I support your nomination, but there's all kinds of checks and balances and the checks and balances are intended to prevent mistakes. There are still mistakes that get made but there are fewer mistakes because consensus is required."

After almost two years of an investigation and trial, Justice Douglas Cunningham dismissed two charges of influence peddling against the mayor, revolving around allegations that he had offered to help opponent Terry Kilrea obtain a position on the National Parole Board in exchange for Mr. Kilrea withdrawing from the 2006 mayoral race so that right wing vote would not be split on election day.

Justice Cunningham said the evidence presented over 19 days of the three-month trial did not prove Mr. O'Brien pretended to have influence with federal politicians and officials in order to appoint Mr. Kilrea to the parole board.

"It is not an offence to want an opponent to withdraw from a political race, nor is it an offence to encourage an opponent to seek alternative employment. Were this an offence, there would be a need for many more jails," Justice Cunningham said in his verdict. He added that although Mr. O'Brien walked a "fine line" and showed "poor judgment," he only committed a "rookie mistake"—not a crime.

Mr. Galipeau was pleased the trial was over because he believed it was "a nuisance," and "politically motivated by people who did not want to accept the result of the last mayoralty election." Mr. Galipeau (Ottawa-Orleans, Ont.), who said he was annoyed by the ordeal Mr. O'Brien went through, said the mayor will now be struggling to fulfill his mandate and election promises, such as freezing property taxes, which have already been raised five per cent.

"His mandate is going to be pretty well a lame duck kind of mandate. He's got at the outside 10 months to do his job. It's not fair," said Mr. Galipeau. "I'm concerned that elected officials don't protect democracy more. Democracy is intended for everybody, not just for nice people and the mayor's mandate was challenged by a vexatious criminal investigation."

Duff Conacher, coordinator of Democracy Watch, said despite the not guilty verdicts, Justice Cunningham made a more important ruling in June. He rejected a motion by the defense to dismiss the charges completely on the argument that trading favours is commonplace in politics.

"First of all, it's not true, it's not how politics is usually done, you don't have people saying 'drop out of an electoral race and I will get you an appointment,'" said Mr. Conacher. "This ruling in June has cleared up one thing, it says no—no trading favours for appointments. It may be usual politics but it's not legal politics."

Mr. Conacher believes the director of public prosecutions should review a number of cases where MPs may have exerted undue influence to decide whether people were bribed as defined under section 119 of the Criminal Code.

"Section 119 says you can't offer anything to an elected official in return for them, anything of value in return for them doing something or not doing something in their official position," he said. "The kicker word in that section is you cannot corruptly offer and that word is important because if it just said you can't offer, then it doesn't have to be a corrupt offer—it just has to be any offer. So what makes it corrupt? We don't know. We are 142 years old as a country and we have no idea what the line is between an offer to an MP to give them some sort of benefit if they do something that is illegal, versus legal."

Former Liberal Minister Sheila Copps, who wrote recently in The Hill Times about her concern that "a conviction could create unprecedented political chill, casting a pall over the efforts of any politician to do their job," said she was "pleased with the decision." She said she hopes it "puts the matter to rest and that people go back to being political."

Public appointments are "highly political" in nature but governments are very careful in their assigning of the more than 3,000 Governor in Council appointments available to them, said Ms. Copps, because they know they will have to defend their decisions.

"Successive governments have put in checks and balances before it even gets to be a political decision. So for 10 people that might apply, probably only two will be considered by the politicians because the rest of them will flunk the test before it even gets there. The two of them are both suitable. Which one is better? Then it becomes a political decision," said Ms. Copps.

"At the end of the day it's up to the government to have to defend those positions and that's why there's so many checks and balances in place to make sure that unqualified people don't even get considered."

cmunster@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

You must be a subscriber or a registered member to make a comment.