The trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien on influence-peddling charges had a far-fetched look about it from the outset. People accustomed to watching how political business is conducted didn't find much unusual in Mr. O'Brien's behaviour. His acquittal Wednesday fortifies that impression.
In the mayoral race in 2006, Mr. O'Brien advised a competitor, Terry Kilrea, that it would be wise to step aside. In exchange for doing so, Mr. Kilrea might, with the mayor's help, get a federal appointment.
It's the type of low-grade politics and backroom favour-trading that has been with us forever. It predates the Visigoths. How many times have our political leaders urged candidates to drop out of races, with the promise that they would get something in return? An appointment to a board, a Senate seat, whatever.
Patronage, as it is pleasantly termed, comes in many forms. Upon close inspection, Mayor Larry's dealings – “a big swinging dick contest,” he called it – did not amount to anything that was abnormally sinister. The big difference was that his case became the one in a ton that made it to the criminal-charges plateau. The case captured much attention not only because it had obvious implications for the city of Ottawa, but also because it was seen as something of a test case for the whole patronage industry.
If Mr. O'Brien was convicted, what a chill would be sent through the system. Any politician doing a favour for another with a trade-off benefit for himself or herself might be subject to influence-peddling charges. Politics as we know it would have much of the lifeblood sucked out of it. On the other hand, an acquittal of the mayor might be seen as giving politics as usual – as in dirty politics as usual – a shining green light.
Mr. Justice Douglas Cunningham's well-reasoned decision should not create that kind of fallout. His analysis showed that there were reasonable doubts aplenty in the Crown's case.
After the mayor's initial conversation with Mr. Kilrea, he never followed up in any sustained or determined fashion to try to get him a job. It wasn't as if he was exerting undue pressure on his Conservative contacts, notably John Baird and John Reynolds, to come up with the National Parole Board appointment that Mr. Kilrea wanted. Rather, after rolling out the job possibility, it appears that Mr. O'Brien, informed that it wasn't a wise thing to do, backed off.
In his verdict, Judge Cunningham said he could not help but agree with the mayor's crude dick-swinging terminology. In fact, that appears to be what the whole shoddy affair amounted to. There wasn't much influence to peddle.
But the mayor's acquittal will probably still provide fodder for more cynicism about the political process. Now it's okay, some will reason, for a candidate for high political office to dangle big job promises at a rival to get him to quit a race.
For Duff Conacher, an authority on ethics who heads the Democracy Watch group, the problem is the vagueness of our laws governing patronage, influence-peddling and the like. “Judicial authorities won't draw a line in the sand. We're 142 years into our history and we don't know where the line is.”
Mr. Conacher is disillusioned, as well he might be, with the inaction in this regard as well as in connection with the exercise of patronage in Ottawa at the wider level.
After the Liberals built the patronage system into a fine art form, there was hope that the Conservatives would bring in the broom. Their planned Public Appointments Commission would see to it that postings were merit-based instead of favour-based. A Larry O'Brien would not be able to go a John Baird for a job-granting favour. But the commission was discarded after opposition parties would not accept the nominee to chair it and since then, despite government promises to reinstitute it, nothing has happened.
In the meantime, the patronage system has operated, according to Mr. Conacher, pretty much as it did under the Grits. The Conservatives have made more than 1,000 appointments, he said, getting their favourites in place without due screening.
The old beat goes on. Though patronage used to stir much controversy, it doesn't in these times. Rather, it has come to be accepted as the lowly norm, and Judge Cunningham's decision, as wise at it is in the O'Brien case, won't help to change things.
