Please support democracy

Without your support, Democracy Watch can't win key changes to stop governments and big businesses from abusing their power and hurting you and your family. Please click here to support democracy now

Hill Times headline mischaracterizes and ignores key ethics issue in Calandra conflict


Set out below is a letter-to-the-editor by Democracy Watch Board member Duff Conacher which was published in the The Hill Times on August 6, 2012 and and 404 System Error on August 8, 2012


The headline for your article, and Tim Powers and John Capobianco, mischaracterize and ignore the key ethics issue with the fundraising event for Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to Canadian Heritage Paul Calandra (“Tory MP’s ‘piddly’ fundraiser donation conflict overblown, say lobbyists Capobianco, Powers,” The Hill Times, July 30, p. 1).

According to The Globe and Mail and your article, the fundraising event was held at the home of Kirupalini Kirupakaran, sister of WorldBand Media’s president Prabha Selvadurai. According to The Globe and Mail, Kirupakaran has pledged to the CRTC that she will invest up to $2-million in WorldBand Media should it win the competition for the talk radio station.

At the fundraising event, five people the CRTC has listed as WorldBand investors made donations totaling $5,000, and a total of $22,000 was raised.

By playing a role in organizing the event, Selvadural and Kirupakaran essentially delivered $22,000 to a public office holder at or around the same time as WorldBand was lobbying (via the services of Hill and Knowlton) Canadian Heritage, and a government institution (the CRTC), about a decision that falls within that public office holder’s areas of responsibility.

This is the key ethics issue, but your headline, and the Conservative lobbyists you quote, instead downplay the issue by focusing on the fact that each donation made was only for $1,000 maximum.

As a Globe and Mail article about the event noted, but your article neglected to mention, the participation by a Parliamentary secretary in such an event potentially violates the rules set out in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s own “Accountability Guide.” In Appendix B of that guide, it states re: fundraising and dealing with lobbyists that: “Ministers, ministers of state and Parliamentary secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interests.”

Beyond those rules, as your article mentions, the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously ruled in Democracy Watch’s case in March 2009 that a lobbyist who fundraises for a politician at the same time or around the same time as lobbying the politician clearly violates Rule 8 of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct. The court ordered Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd to uphold that standard which she did by issuing an interpretation and enforcement bulletin for Rule 8 in November 2009. Yes, the commissioner’s bulletin has some problems, but it is clear enough for any lobbyist to understand that fundraising and lobbying that are connected are prohibited.

Selvadural and Kirupakaran may try to claim that they were not lobbying, Hill and Knowlton was, and that Kirupakaran as hostess of the event is not with WorldBand. One can only hope that doing fundraising and lobbying in these ways will not be viewed by Shepherd as a way of getting around the clear rules that prohibit both federal politicians, and federal lobbyists, from being involved in fundraising and lobbying efforts that are connected.

As for Calandra, he seems to think that returning the $5,000 donated clears away the ethics violations. He is forgetting that a person directly connected with the company lobbying his department held a fundraising event that raised an additional $17,000 for him.

According to The Globe and Mail, Prime Minister Harper’s office has already issued a statement that ignores the Accountability Guide prohibition on being in an “appearance of a conflict of interest” and stamps the fundraising event as being 100 per cent ethical solely because the CRTC application was not discussed at the event.

As for Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson—she has already issued a ruling (archive website) on a similar event held for Cabinet Minister Lisa Raitt in September 2009.

In that ruling, Dawson deployed her usual twisted logic and extremely weak enforcement standards to claim that because the event raised funds for Minister Raitt’s riding association, Minister Raitt did not personally benefit in any way, and therefore the gift that lobbyists who were lobbying her gave her by helping organizing the event was an acceptable gift.

Thankfully, Dawson’s incompetent ruling was not the last word and Shepherd issued a ruling that found lobbyists, Michael McSweeney and Will Stewart, had violated Rule 8 by helping organize the fundraising event for Raitt.

The ethics commissioner is reviewing whether Calandra may have contravened the Conflict of Interest Act for public office holders or the Conflict of Interest Code for MPs, but has not yet decided to launch a formal investigation. It is not known whether the commissioner of lobbying has received a complaint or is looking into the matter. Democracy Watch intends to file a complaint with the lobbying commissioner.

One can only hope that Dawson will ignore her deeply-flawed ruling in the Raitt case and find Calandra guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act, but although it is better to hope than to despair, no one should hold their breath hoping for a legally correct ruling given Dawson’s record which consists of only one ruling in five years where she has found a Cabinet minister in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act (that being her finding in March 2012 that Christian Paradis violated the act—a ruling where she was cornered completely by that situation and would have had to essentially repeal the act in order to rule that Paradis had done nothing wrong).

And one can only hope that Prime Minister Harper will sometime soon start upholding his Accountability Guide rules, given that he has ignored them so far in situations involving many of his Cabinet ministers and senior government officials.

But again, no one should hold their breath waiting for this as Harper has made it clear that he has no problem with practising dishonest, unethical, secretive and wasteful politics as usual, as long as he gets what he wants.

The best that can likely be hoped for is that Shepherd will do her job properly and find the company guilty of violating Rule 8 of the Lobbyists’ Code. Unfortunately, there is no penalty for this violation, although hopefully there will be soon if the recommendations in the recent House Access Committee report are actually implemented by the Conservatives.


For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Federal Conservative Party response to Carson charges deeply hypocritical, federal ethics rules must be applied equally to all


Set out below is a letter-to-the-editor by Democracy Watch Coordinator Tyler Sommers which was published in the Huffington Post, July 30, 2012


The federal Conservatives responded to the influence-peddling charges that former Prime Minister Harper adviser Bruce Carson is facing by issuing a statement saying “any individual who doesn’t respect our laws must face their full force, as well as the consequences that come with them.”

This is a deeply hypocritical statement from the Conservatives whose leader, Prime Minister Harper, has done nothing to penalize dozens of Conservative Cabinet ministers and MPs who violated federal good government rules by handing out government cheques labelled with the Conservative Party logo, and has done nothing to penalize Cabinet ministers Christian Paradis (who violated the federal ethics law), Tony Clement (who violated federal spending rules in the G8-G20 fiasco), Jim Flaherty and Peter MacKay (who violated federal budget rules by hiding the actual cost of the fighter jets), Peter MacKay again (who violated rules by using a military helicopter for a personal purpose), and Bev Oda (who violated rules governing expenses, and also misled Parliament).

In some cases, these ministers and others have faced no consequences for violating key rules also because a watchdog agency like the Auditor General or Ethics Commissioner has no power to penalize them, or has failed to enforce the law effectively and properly and no one is allowed to challenge their improper enforcement in court.

Because nothing can be done to force a Prime Minister to penalize Cabinet ministers and politicians who violate rules, the watchdog agencies must be required to conduct random audits and to investigate all complaints and situations in which there is evidence of a violation, and must be given the power to, and required to, penalize violators, and everyone must be allowed to challenge any watchdog in court who fails to enforce rules properly.

As well, the huge loopholes must be closed in key good government laws because these loopholes currently make it legal in many cases for people involved in politics to be dishonest, unethical, secretive and wasteful.

For example, loopholes in the federal lobbying law, and weak enforcement, have meant that no one has been prosecuted for failing to register as a lobbyist since the law was enacted in 1988, and dozens of lobbyists have been let off the hook (archive website). Recently, a House of Commons Committee has recommended some changes to close some of the loopholes in that law, and to strengthen enforcement, but not enough changes to stop secret, unethical lobbying of the federal government.


For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Elections Canada and others should clean up problems, not defend them


Set out below is a letter-to-the-editor by Democracy Watch Coordinator Tyler Sommers which was published in the The Edmonton Journal, The National Post, and The Epoch Times, July 12, 2012 and the Hill Times July 23, 2012


 

In the Supreme Court of Canada case about voting in a Toronto area riding during last May’s federal election, Elections Canada and some provincial elections agencies seem to be arguing that problems are inevitable instead of acknowledging that their current systems have significant weaknesses in ensuring that voters are voting properly at the correct polling station.

The robocall election fraud situation has revealed other weaknesses in fair election enforcement.

And these two situations are likely the tip of the iceberg, as there are more than 3,000 complaints that Elections Canada alone has received since 1997. Unfortunately, Elections Canada continues to refuse to disclose its rulings in those complaints, so the public has no idea whether enforcement of the rules has been proper and effective in the past six federal elections.

[ NOTE: To see info about the 3,000 complaints, go to: this news release — Democracy Watch will soon release details about a recent Elections Canada ruling that raises serious questions about its enforcement standards ]

Rather than defending systems with loopholes, and hiding enforcement records, Elections Canada and the provincial agencies should be disclosing details to prove their enforcement is effective, and pushing for stronger laws and more resources and training to ensure our future elections are fraud-free.

 


 

For more details about the changes needed to Elections Canada go to April 16 News release