Back to the Murray Rankin thing...I wouldn't vote for him but I wouldn't hold that court case against him either. If he was defending a serial killer he'd fight to make sure the prosecution brought forward a proper case regardless. It wouldn't mean he approved of the actions of a mass murderer, obviously. That's life as a lawyer.
Rob, your comparsion is off on a few points. Rankin wasn't defending anybody and he wasn't in “court.” He appeared as a paid expert witness on behalf of a mining company that was suing the Canadian government through the provisions of NAFTA. NAFTA is completely separate from the Canadian judicial system.
Rankin was, in effect, on the plaintiff's side in a civil suit. How did he get there? Rankin was asked by the mining company---Bilcon---to represent its interests in the suit. If Rankin had been someone who, say, was opposed to the way in which NAFTA Investor-State Dispute Settlement tribunals work against a country's sovereign interests, he wouldn't have taken the job. Instead, he didn't seem to have any problem with that; in fact his responses to our reporter suggest he may have been unaware of how the tribunals work.
It was Rankin's personal choice to help Bilcon. That's the issue. He hasn't provided a satisfying answer as to why he did something that contributed to a decision that is going to cost Canada hundreds of millions and, as the dissenting member of the tribunal, Professor Donald McRae, noted, has resulted in “A remarkable step backwards in environmental protection.” Instead, Rankin has portrayed his involvement as something he was legally compelled to do.
This is an important part of Rankin's recent record as an elected official. Focus decided it was worthy of his constituents' considersation before an election. If it had been Elizabeth May, we would have done that story, too.
David Broadland