Stating that a person is in a “delicate situation” is in no way the same as calling them dishonest.
• Read also: Two lawyer deputies in a delicate situation
“Delicate”: “Which presents aspects that are difficult to appreciate, embarrassing to execute; complex, difficult, dangerous.” (Larousse)
Because I wrote in my column on Saturday that two deputies found themselves in a situation of this type, I was accused of attacking their integrity.
However, I presented the facts. Only the epithet “delicate”, in my text, resembles a value judgment.
SMEs
Saturday, on This insistence alone demonstrates that he himself found his situation “delicate”!
And he is right: GCR is an MP, QS spokesperson for Immigration AND at the same time in business in this same field: he is the sole shareholder of a firm specializing in immigration law with 5 to 10 salaried employees.
Since his election, he swears that he has billed “no hours and represented no clients in court.” At most “a few follow-ups by email in files currently being processed only”.
But the lawyers he employs obviously charge. And when the firm makes a profit, Mr. Cliche-Rivard is the sole beneficiary. Since his election, has business been better or worse? Invoicing is “confidential”, I was told at QS.
Trademark
When his party or the media highlight his specialization in immigration law, there are surely many potential clients in the audience who take note.
If they want to use its services, they can, in any search engine for example, find the firm bearing the precise name of the MP: “Cliche-Rivard lawyers.” A lawyer points this out to me: “It’s a trademark.”
In her notice to Marie-Claude Nichols, the Ethics Commissioner prohibited this other lawyer MP from acting as if she wanted to “build a clientele”. Whether he likes it or not, Mr. Cliche-Rivard, because he is still the sole owner of his firm, seems to do precisely that, as soon as he speaks publicly about his profession and his specialization .
Be careful
Faced with all the limits and rules imposed by the commissioner on Mme Nichols, the latter, out of prudence, gave up her profession. For his situation to cease to be “delicate,” shouldn’t Mr. Cliche-Rivard have changed the name of his firm and sold his shares altogether?
Perhaps this is one of the proposals that the commissioner made to him? Impossible to know, since GCR refuses to publish its opinions (apart from a conclusion).
Finally, a year ago, we were told that MPs deserved a 30% increase, because their working hours were almost infinite. It seemed deserved to me anyway. But learning that elected officials have such extra work (and income) seems… surprising to me. At the risk of appearing indelicate.
