OTTAWA — A Liberal MP has been barred from asking questions on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair in Parliament, raising fears that a libel chill is set to extend into the House and committee rooms on the Hill.
Up until this week, Liberal MP Robert Thibault had been one of the opposition party's main questioners on the cash dealings between former prime minister Brian Mulroney and businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.
However, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has barred Mr. Thibault from raising the issue further in Parliament because Mr. Mulroney has launched a $2-million lawsuit against Mr. Thibault for allegedly libellous statements on CTV Newsnet on the matter.
Ms. Dawson ruled that according to the conflict-of-interest code, Mr. Thibault now has a “private interest” in the controversy and he cannot debate or vote on issues related to it.
In the absence of the lawsuit, Mr. Thibault could have continued to say anything on the matter in Parliament, given that parliamentary privilege protects MPs from being sued for what they say in the House or at committee.
However, the Ethics Commissioner said the conflict-of-interest code, as it stands, clearly affects Mr. Thibault's rights as an MP.
She found that Mr. Thibault was wrong to participate in the ethics committee's probe of the Mulroney-Schreiber dealings, including asking questions directly to Mr. Mulroney last December. Mr. Mulroney announced his intention to sue last November and filed the suit in January.
“I am of the view that lawsuits claiming damages that have been instituted against an individual constitute a liability,” Ms. Dawson's ruling said.
“His participation in the work of the Committee could reasonably be seen to be potentially influenced by his private interest, thus interfering with his public duties and functions and clearly creating a situation of real or apparent conflict of interest,” she said.
Ms. Dawson, who began her investigation after a complaint from the Conservatives, did not impose any sanctions against Mr. Thibault, stating that he acted in good faith and that her ruling was a first on this type of issue.
While Mr. Thibault said he accepts the Ethics Commissioner's report, he added that he also hopes that Parliament will take note and ensure that lawsuits are not used to force MPs to stop discussing public issues.
“I probably can no longer ask questions on this,” Mr. Thibault said. “It raises fears.”
In the current circumstances, Mr. Thibault said, he would likely be the subject of another investigation by the Ethics Commissioner if he continued to discuss the matter in Parliament.
Although the controversy has been quiet in recent weeks, it will quickly come back to the fore when the Harper government announces details of the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber dealings.
Ned Franks, a professor emeritus at Queen's University in Kingston and a parliamentary expert, said this week's ruling can prevent Parliament from doing its job, given that lawsuits can come down quickly these days.
“Does simply the threat of a lawsuit justify handicapping members when they're serving in their capacity as members of Parliament in the House of Commons? I think the answer to that has to be no,” he said.
Ms. Dawson also said the code could be amended to remove the threat of a libel chill.
