If there is a lawsuit brewing, it could take years to come to trial. The problem is that Ms. Keen’s testimony before the parliamentary committee would be recorded and transcribed. Transcripts like can be used as fodder for cross examination at any subsequent trial, which can sometimes present difficulty.

I continue to maintain that all members of the CNSC, as adjudicators sitting on an administrative tribunal entitled to a significant degree of institutional independence, have a duty to safeguard and defend that independence against political interference in specific cases before it.

The interesting ethical question is how far that duty goes, and the manner in which it must be reconciled against the members’ right to procedural fairness in any litigation that arises involving the government.

Basically, Ms. Keen’s interest in avoiding testimony before the parliamentary committee conflicts with her duty to protect the independence of the CNSC. How is that conflict to be reconciled?

I don’t have an answer, but it will definitely make for some interesting blog material once I’ve had a chance to do some research and reflect on the question.

Thanks for posting!