Angry in the Great White North

Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla is try to be clever.  Facing serious allegations that she illegally hired live-in caregivers to take care of her generally healthy mother, then had the nannies shovel snow and shine shoes and such, Ruby Dhalla is facing the end of her political career.

Indeed, she is facing potential civil and criminal charges...if the allegations are established to be true.

She needs to disprove these allegations. 

And Ruby Dhalla is pursuing this path...but using a bit of clever trickery to avoid a real investigation:

In a statement this morning, the Brampton-Springdale MP said, "I have been saddened and troubled by the allegations made against my family and I this week. I take these allegations very seriously, and believe that a transparent, third-party evaluation of the facts is required to clear my name.

"I have requested the ethics commissioner to commence a review to ensure that this matter is resolved in a fair and objective manner."

Commissioner Mary Dawson is responsible for helping MPs avoid conflicts of interest and administering the Conflict of Interest Code for MPs.

One thing I've noticed is that Ruby Dhalla needs some grammar lessons.  The allegations were "made against me and my family", not "made against my family and I".  I just had to get that out of the way.

But what is truly laughable in this statement is that the Ethics Commissioner's job is not to investigate potential wrongdoing by MPs except where conflicts of interest might exist.  The Ethics Commissioner is not called in when an MP is caught speeding down the highway, or writing nasty emails to critics, or illegally hiring nannies:

Welcome to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The Commissioner, Mary Dawson, is an Officer of Parliament, responsible for assisting Members of Parliament and Public Office Holders to prevent and avoid conflicts of interest between their public duties and their private interests. Working with the support of an Office, the Commissioner administers the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the Members' Code) and the Conflict of Interest Act (the Act). These documents spell out what Members and Public Office Holders must do to avoid and prevent real and potential conflict of interest.

The Office provides advice and guidance to individuals on how specific provisions of the Act and the Code apply to them. The Office is also responsible for receiving the confidential reports of assets, liabilities and activities from Members of the House of Commons and Public Office Holders, and maintaining public registries for publicly declarable information under the Act and the Code. The Commissioner may also conduct investigations and make reports on allegations that either the Code or the Act have been breached.

So what will Mary Dawson do?  She'll look over this case, and determine that Ruby Dhalla is not a cabinet minister who is personally profiting by directing contracts to businesses she has an interest in, or directing development of a government property in such a way as to increase the value of her home, or selling her influence to people who are affected by her governmental responsibilities.

And so, in conclusion, the ethics commissioner will clear Ruby Dhalla of any conflict of interest concerns. 

Which is fine, except that no one is suggesting that Ruby Dhalla is in conflict of interest.  The suggestion is that she mistreated underpaid illegal immigrants.

Either show us how the Conflict of Interest code is relevant in this case, or stop using the Ethics Commissioner as cover for your alleged indiscretions.

But you know what the real concern is?  Why is Ruby Dhalla is being clever and trying to use an irrelevant investigative body that will spend no time at all investigating the actual allegations (those allegations being outside of this body's mandate) so that she can point to the foregone conclusion (no conflict of interest here) as exoneration?

Why not submit herself to an investigation by the Ontario Ministry of Labour, by Immigration Canada, and by the RCMP, all of which have overlapping interests the allegations raised?

If she's innocent, why hide behind the Ethics Commissioner?

This call for the Ethics Commissioner to investigate is a clever ruse, and ought to be called out as such.  Not just by me, or by columnists, or by Conservative and NDP politicians.  Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff ought to distance himself from Ruby Dhalla's plan, or better yet, declare it to be insufficient as a means of clearing Ruby Dhalla's reputation.  Ignatieff said in a statement that he looks "forward to a determination of the facts regarding her family's experience with live-in caregivers".  That determination of the facts is not going to happen because of any effort by the Ethics Commissioner, and indeed, and finding by her would cloud the issue for many people who are not certain what the Ethics Commissioner actually does. 

Michael Ignatieff could help any investigation along by making certain that Ruby Dhalla submits herself to the appropriate authorities for investigation.  If Michael Ignatieff supports Ruby Dhalla's call for the Ethics Commissioner to clear her name, then he's no better than any Liberal leader who has preceded him.