Malodour Order In the House of Commons

"If anybody thinks I could become more friendly to trade unions, then they don't know me very well.  I'm a socialist and trade unionists and former head of the carpenters' union in Manitoba.
"They don't want to see a politician be stymied and silenced by legal action when we were only acting on fair comment."
NDP Member of Parliament Pat Martin

"If this is some new way that money can come into the system, it should apply to everyone.
"There are several members of my caucus that have lawsuits or litigation. Could they get money from a union or corporation?"
Conservative MP Erin O'Toole

Kind of interesting, the issue is, on a practical level. Is it that hard to remember that if a member of parliament makes a statement in the House of Commons, he/she is then protected from the possibility of a lawsuit arising out of that statement? It seems that the well-seasoned New Democratic Party member of Parliament forgot that basic rule and spoke in a place and at a time when he could be sued. Slander is not a pretty charge.

RackNine took umbrage with Mr. Martin. Who impulsively issued a statement condemning that Edmonton-based voice-broadcasting company for having been involved in a conspiracy to send out misleading calls during the 2011 general election, directing prospective voters in Guelph, Ontario to the wrong polling location. As it happens, RackNine was able to defend itself successfully from any such charge.

When that defence was accepted as legitimate, clearing RackNine of suspicion alleged by journalists, Mr. Martin issued an apology but RackNine remained less than impressed and decided to press on with its suit. Eventually, however, the two reached a settlement to avoid taking the $5-million lawsuit to court. Mr. Martin claims to have paid down half of the publicly-unrevealed sum of what he owes, with a "massive amount" remaining.

Creating for him a somewhat painful financial situation where it costs him $2,700 monthly to service the loan he had taken out with the New Democratic Party. Now it has been revealed that the MP has received numerous "gifts" from labour unions and other like sources to help him pay down that loan. He had taken the precaution of consulting with Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to ensure the legality of what he was doing, accepting such "gifts".

He was also given a clean bill of health, he claims, from Revenue Canada, whom he also queried, as well as Elections Canada. So there is nothing strictly illegal about his having launched a legal defence fund to collect gifts from friends and well-wishers like the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, along with 14 other assorted unions or locals.

The ethics of the situation has been called into question. Whether these sources of largesse would call in their promissory notes attendant on the gifts. Whether Mr. Martin might be swayed in situations where he should be objective. The Ethics Commissioner does require Mr. Martin to recuse himself from matters that may relate to one of those donors, but it does not restrain him from acting on issues like a private member's bill to require more financial disclosure from trade unions, which he opposes.

Which brings to mind another recent, quite similar issue. With another lawmaker, a Senator, having been given a 'free gift' from the-then Prime Minister's executive aide in the sum of $90,000  to help him to pay back funds he owed the Senate of Canada to compensate for claims he had made to which he was not entitled, ethically, not criminally. On the presumption of the potential of buying of favours, Nigel Wright resigned his office, leaving the PMO.

Similarities abound. Different interpretation?