Complaint argues some members not only violated ethics rules in their contract with the Finance Canada but also rules in the Conflict of Interest Act by taking part in Advisory Council decisions while their businesses were seeking favourable decisions from Finance Minister Morneau

Complaint also argues Minister Morneau is giving preferential treatment to the Quebec Caisse because its President Michael Sabia is on Morneau’s Council

Ethics Commissioner must recuse herself as she is serving at the pleasure of Cabinet

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, May 8, 2017

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch released the letter it sent today to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson concerning the situation revealed in an article in last Friday’s Globe and Mail. The letter calling for an investigation and ruling on whether Finance Minister Bill Morneau violated the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) by giving preferential treatment to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec because the Caisse’s president, Michael Sabia, is serving as a member of Morneau’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls for an investigation of whether Mr. Sabia and other members of the Advisory Council, including Mark Wiseman of BlackRock Asset Management Canada Ltd., violated the COIA given that, as ministerial advisers to Morneau, they failed to remove themselves from decision-making processes when they were in an conflict of interest, as required by the COIA and their contract as a Council member.

In Democracy Watch’s opinion, based on the information in Friday’s Globe and Mail article and other research it has conducted, Mr. Sabia and Mr. Wiseman were in a conflict of interest when they took part in decisions concerning the Council’s recommendations for the creation of an Infrastructure Bank, given that the Caisse and BlackRock would benefit from the public funding provided to the bank. Mr. Sabia also had a conflict of interest because the Caisse is seeking federal government funding for its public transportation initiative in Montreal. Mr. Wiseman also had a conflict of interest because BlackRock was registered to lobby Finance Canada through to December 21, 2016. An investigation is needed to determine whether other members of the Council also work with organizations that would benefit from the Infrastructure Bank.

“It’s illegal under the federal ethics law for members of Finance Minister Morneau’s economic advisory council to be his advisers at the same time as the businesses and organizations they work for are trying to influence Minister Morneau’s decisions of Finance Canada and the federal government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “An independent investigation is needed to determine how many members of the council crossed this line.”

“The ruling on this situation must uphold the rule in the federal ethics law that people lobbying the federal government can’t also work for or with the government,” said Conacher. “If it doesn’t, the law will be gutted and it will become effectively legal for big business executives and lobbyists to be senior government officials.”

Also according to Friday’s Globe and Mail article, the federal government has hired a Toronto investment bank, Blair Franklin Capital Partners, under a special process to speed up the government’s review of the Caisse’s request for federal funding. Democracy Watch’s opinion is that it seems the Caisse is receiving preferential treatment from Minister Morneau because it is represented by Mr. Sabia who is on Minister Morneau’s Advisory Council.

Section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act prohibits ministers and other public office holders from giving preferential treatment to any organization based on the organization’s representative. “An independent investigation is needed to determine whether Minister Morneau has given the Caisse preferential treatment because the Caisse’s president Michael Sabia is serving as his adviser,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to recuse herself from ruling on the complaint because the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet gave her the gift of a $100,000, six-month contract in mid-December. Under subsection 82(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Cabinet is not required to consult opposition party leaders before appointing anyone to a six-month term like the one the Ethics Commissioner is currently serving.

“It would be outrageous if someone filed a lawsuit against a Trudeau Cabinet minister and Prime Minister Trudeau chose the judge to rule on the lawsuit and handed the judge a six-month contract worth $100,000, and it is equally outrageous for ethics complaints against Trudeau Cabinet ministers to be ruled on by an ethics commissioner Prime Minister Trudeau has chosen,” said Conacher.

Under the Annex 2 “Conflict of Interest Guidelines” in the Letter of Agreement each member of Morneau’s Advisory Council was required to sign with the Finance Canada, members were required to disclose any apparent conflicts of interest and to remove themselves from discussions that affected their or their business’ interests. According to Friday’s Globe and Mail article, no disclosures were made, and no recusals happened.

Beyond violating those guidelines, the COIA covers anyone who is “ministerial adviser” – defined as anyone, other than a public servant, who “occupies a position in the office of a minister” and provides policy advice to a minister on issues relating to his/her powers and duties, even if they don’t work full time and are not paid or compensated in any way.

Democracy Watch’s opinion is that the members of Minister Morneau’s Advisory Council are ministerial advisers (the details are in the letter) and are therefore covered by the COIA. While they don’t physically work in the office of Finance Minister Morneau, they are: working with and advising him directly; have access to confidential government information, and; have been described by Finance Canada as “working with the Government.”

Section 4 and subsection 6(1) of the COIA together prohibit public office holders, including “ministerial advisers” from making or taking part in decisions when they have an opportunity to further their own, their family’s or their friends’ private interests or to improperly further another person’s interests.

Democracy Watch’s opinion is that, based on the information in Friday’s Globe and Mail article, Michael Sabia and Mark Wiseman (and possibly also other members of the council) took part in Advisory Council decision-making processes in which they had the opportunity to further their own interests given their positions in their organizations meant that if their organizations benefited they would also benefit. They also violated the guidelines in their Letter of Agreement by taking part in those decisions, and as a result also improperly furthered the interests of their organizations.

Beyond Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s own conflict of interest, which means she must recuse herself from ruling on Democracy Watch’s complaint, another reason not to have Ethics Commissioner Dawson rule on the complaints is her negligently weak enforcement record since 2007 and lack of accountability (See Backgrounder below for details). Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition continue to call for key changes to strengthen federal political ethics rules and the enforcement system (See Backgrounder for details).

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign proposes that the way to ensure the appointment of a fully independent, merit-based Ethics Commissioner is to have a fully independent commission whose members are approved by all federal party leaders along with entities such as the Canadian Judicial Council do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for candidates, and to require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of candidates that the commission nominates, with approval still by the House of Commons.

Ontario uses this kind of independent appointment system to appoint provincial judges (with the advisory committee provides a shortlist of three candidates to the Cabinet). The The United Kingdom uses it to appoint judges and judicial tribunal members (like the Ethics Commissioner is) – its advisory committee provides only one candidate to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has to accept the candidate or reject the candidate and provide written reasons. Both of their systems are considered to be world leading.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

---

Backgrounder

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson has greatly undermined various sections of the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) in past rulings by creating loopholes in the COIA that do not exist – such as:

1. her April 29, 2010 “Cheques Report” ruling claiming that political parties are not “persons” under the COIA and therefore it was fine for Conservative MPs and Cabinet ministers to hand out government cheques with the Conservative Party logo on them;
2. her May 13, 2010 “Raitt Report” ruling that it was fine for two lobbyists who were lobbying Minister Lisa Raitt to help raise thousands of dollars for her riding association because, you claimed, that only helped the association not her;
3. her December 2016 ruling that it was fine for Health Minister Jane Philpott to use the driving service company of one of her former campaign volunteers because it was the only such company Minister Philpott claimed she knew about (a ruling that creates a loophole allowing any Minister or other senior government officlal to use the same invalid excuse Minister Philpott used to give contracts to their friends or other party loyalists);
4. her baseless decision that the COIA only applies to financial interests despite the fact that the COIA’s section 2 definition of “private interest” does not in any way even suggest that the definition of “private interest” is restricted to only financial interests, and;
5. her baseless decision that the COIA only applies to close personal friends (there is no such definition of “friends” in the COIA).

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Federal ethics law and codes missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest. Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises to close the huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

But lawsuit alleges Premier Clark, and ministers Coleman and Polak, were biased because of the donations and therefore it was illegal for them even to participate in any way in the pipeline review and approval decision

Groups also asking court to order B.C. Liberals to disclose details of fundraising activities by pipeline-connected companies for Liberals over the past 5 years to reveal extent of undue influence

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 3, 2017

VANCOUVER – Today, Democracy Watch and PIPE UP Network are in the B.C. Supreme Court for the next step in their lawsuit that alleges the decision to approve the Kinder Morgan Pipeline was tainted by the more than $630,000 paid by pipeline-connected companies to the B.C. Liberal Party in the past five years. The $630,000, plus Premier Christy Clark’s $50,000 annual salary paid by the BC Liberal Party, generated a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from her participation in the decision-making.

“Incredibly, Premier Clark is pretending she didn’t participate in any way in her government’s approval of Kinder Morgan pipeline in an attempt to dodge the issue that the approval was biased by more than $630,000 in donations from pipeline-connected companies to the B.C. Liberal Party, part of which she received in her $50,000 annual salary from the party,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Is Premier Clark actually trying to deny that she stood in front of the cameras in 2012 and announced her five conditions for pipeline approval, and that she announced last November the Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal had not yet met her five conditions, and that she announced in January that her government had approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline because her five conditions had been met?”

Premier Clark’s announcement in 2012 of her government’s five conditions for pipeline approval was covered by the media here and here, and the Premier’s announcement in November 2016 that the Kinder Morgan pipeline had not yet met her five conditions was covered by the media here and here, and her approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline in January because it had met her five conditions was covered here and here.

“The Premier’s role in the Kinder Morgan approval is part of the administrative process and forms a critical aspect of the decision-making context that must be assessed in determining whether the Kinder Morgan approval was tainted by bias,” said Jason Gratl, counsel for PIPE UP and Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch and PIPE UP have also filed a motion requesting that the court order the B.C. Liberal Party to disclose all the fundraising activities Kinder Morgan and Trans Mountain pipeline-connected companies were involved in during the past five years with the Liberals, Premier Christy Clark and the Cabinet ministers. The motion will be heard at a later date to be scheduled.

“Premier Clark and the B.C. Liberals can run but they can’t hide from the law, and we hope the court will soon order them to disclose details they have been hiding about all the fundraising activities pipeline-connected companies have helped the Liberals with since 2012,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Jason Gratl, Gratl and Company, Tel: 604-694-1919

Lynn Perrin, PIPE UP Network, Tel: 604-309-9369

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Ethics Commissioner also refuses to rule on whether Trudeau Cabinet broke ethics law when it reappointed her for a 6-month term in December while she was investigating the Cabinet, and refuses to recuse herself even though she is essentially serving at the pleasure of Cabinet

Liberals must change Cabinet appointment system to match Ontario’s judicial appointment process to stop patronage and weak lapdog appointments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, April 26, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it received recently from federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson in response to the four complaint letters Democracy Watch has filed with the Ethics Commissioner since December.

On page 3 of her letter, Ethics Commissioner Dawson says that she is not investigating the Trudeau Cabinet fundraising events and that “further action is not warranted.” She has made this decision even though, in its December 16, 2016 letter, Democracy Watch had complained about a new situation that had not been revealed or considered by the Ethics Commissioner before – Prime Minister Trudeau giving preferential treatment to the companies and/or organizations or other individuals represented by several Liberal Party donors when he invited those donors to a gala dinner in honour of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on September, as reported in the Globe and Mail.

On page 2, Ethics Commissioner Dawson says she is not investigating the Aga Khan’s trip gifts to then-MP Trudeau in 2014, and to Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan in 2016, and she does not even mention lobbyist Murray Edwards’ trip gift to Conservative Interim Party Leader Rona Ambrose. In its January 31, 2017 letter, Democracy Watch complained that both of those trip gifts violated the Conflict of Interest Code for MPs (MP Code), as did the trip gift the Aga Khan gave Prime Minister Trudeau in December 2014, while the Aga Khan’s December 2016 trip gift to Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA).

On page 2 of her letter, Ethics Commissioner Dawson also refused to rule on whether the Trudeau Cabinet violated sections 4 and 6 of the Conflict of Interest Act when Cabinet gave her the gift of a $100,000, six-month renewable contract in mid-December, and a similar contract to the Commissioner of Lobbying, at the same time both commissioner offices were investigating complaints that the Prime Minister and/or ministers violated the Conflict of Interest Act or had a relationship with a lobbyist that violates the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

On page 1 of her letter, Ethics Commissioner Dawson also refused to recuse herself from ruling on situations involving the Trudeau Cabinet even though she is essentially serving at the pleasure of the Cabinet given that it has the power to decide whether she will be given another contract in July after her current contract ends.

Democracy Watch complained about the Trudeau Cabinet’s reappointment of Dawson in its December 6, 2016 and December 14, 2016 letters, and called on the Ethics Commissioner to recuse herself from ruling on any matters concerning the Trudeau Cabinet in those letters and also the December 16th and January 31st letters.

“It would be outrageous if someone filed a lawsuit against Prime Minister Trudeau and he chose the judge to rule on the lawsuit and handed the judge a six-month contract worth $100,000, and it is equally outrageous that people have filed ethics complaints against the Prime Minister and he chose and handed a six-month, $100,000 contract to the Ethics Commissioner who will judge and rule on those complaints,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“By refusing to rule on alleged violations of federal ethics rules by Prime Minister Trudeau, his Cabinet ministers and Liberal MPs, and by rubber-stamping some of their clear violations as ethical, while at the same time finding a former Conservative Cabinet minister guilty of violating the rules, Ethics Commissioner Dawson is continuing her pattern of protecting whichever political party gave her the job and has the power to decide whether she keeps her job,” said Conacher.

“It’s a conflict of interest and violation of the federal ethics law for Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet to choose their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs, especially when they are being investigated by those watchdogs, and receiving a valuable contract from the Cabinet puts those watchdogs in a conflict of interest that undermines their investigations,” said Conacher.

Another reason not to have Ethics Commissioner Dawson rule on the complaints is her negligently weak enforcement record since 2007 and lack of accountability (See Backgrounder below for details). Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition continue to call for key changes to strengthen federal political ethics rules and the enforcement system (See Backgrounder for details).

Democracy Watch proposes that the solution is to have a fully independent commission whose members are approved by all federal party leaders along with entities such as the Canadian Judicial Council do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for the next Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying, and to require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of candidates that the commission nominates, with approval still by the House of Commons.

To stop patronage and cronyism, and the appointment of weak government watchdogs and law enforcement officers, Democracy Watch has called for this change to the process for all Cabinet appointments in its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign. Ontario uses this appointment system to appoint provincial judges, and it is considered to be a world-leading process.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

---

Backgrounder

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson has greatly undermined various sections of the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) in past rulings by creating loopholes in the COIA that do not exist – such as:

1. her April 29, 2010 “Cheques Report” ruling claiming that political parties are not “persons” under the COIA and therefore it was fine for Conservative MPs and Cabinet ministers to hand out government cheques with the Conservative Party logo on them;
2. her May 13, 2010 “Raitt Report” ruling that it was fine for two lobbyists who were lobbying Minister Lisa Raitt to help raise thousands of dollars for her riding association because, you claimed, that only helped the association not her;
3. her December 2016 ruling that it was fine for Health Minister Jane Philpott to use the driving service company of one of her former campaign volunteers because it was the only such company Minister Philpott claimed she knew about (a ruling that creates a loophole allowing any Minister or other senior government officlal to use the same invalid excuse Minister Philpott used to give contracts to their friends or other party loyalists);
4. her baseless decision that the COIA only applies to financial interests despite the fact that the COIA’s section 2 definition of “private interest” does not in any way even suggest that the definition of “private interest” is restricted to only financial interests, and;
5. her baseless decision that the COIA only applies to close personal friends (there is no such definition of “friends” in the COIA).

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Federal ethics law and codes missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest. Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises to close the huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

Federal ethics law prohibits Cabinet ministers from making decisions like appointments that benefit friends, including political friends

Ethics Commissioner must recuse herself as she is serving at pleasure of Liberal Cabinet — Liberals must change Cabinet appointment system to match Ontario’s judicial appointment process to stop patronage and weak lapdog appointments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 25, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it sent yesterday to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson calling for a ruling that former Conservative Attorney General and Minister of Justice Peter MacKay violated the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) by appointing friends as judges, including his former Conservative Cabinet colleague Vic Toews.

According to a February 2015 media report, Peter MacKay appointed a few friends and associates as judges in Nova Scotia from October 2013 on, and in March 2014 he appointed Vic Toews as a judge in Manitoba.

Section 4 and subsection 6(1) of the COIA together prohibit public office holders like Cabinet ministers from making or taking part in decisions when they have an opportunity to further their own, their family’s or their friends private interests. Democracy Watch’s position is that appointing someone as a judge furthers their private interest, and that “friends” should be defined by the Ethics Commissioner as including political friends such as Cabinet colleagues and significant supporters of the governing party.

“It seems clear that at least some of former Minister MacKay’s judicial appointments violated the rule in the federal political ethics law that prohibits making decisions that help friends, including Cabinet colleagues, but an investigation is needed to determine the relationship he had with all his appointees,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to recuse herself from ruling on the complaint because the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet gave her the gift of a $100,000, six-month contract in mid-December.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s office has claimed that the contract does not create a conflict of interest for her because under subsection 81(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, opposition party leaders are consulted on the appointment of the Ethics Commissioner. However, under subsection 82(2) of that Act, the Cabinet is not required to consult opposition party leaders before appointing anyone to a six-month term like the one the Ethics Commissioner is currently serving, and in any case Cabinet makes the final appointment decision.

“It would be outrageous if someone filed a lawsuit against a former Conservative Cabinet minister and then Prime Minister Trudeau chose the judge to rule on the lawsuit and handed the judge a six-month contract worth $100,000, and it is equally outrageous for an ethics complaint against a former Conservative Cabinet minister to be ruled on by an ethics commissioner chosen by and serving at the pleasure of Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau,” said Conacher.

Another reason not to have Ethics Commissioner Dawson rule on the complaints is her negligently weak enforcement record since 2007 and lack of accountability (See Backgrounder below for details). Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition continue to call for key changes to strengthen federal political ethics rules and the enforcement system (See Backgrounder for details).

Democracy Watch proposes that the solution is to have a fully independent commission whose members are approved by all federal party leaders along with entities such as the Canadian Judicial Council do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for the next Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying, and to require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of candidates that the commission nominates, with approval still by the House of Commons.

To stop patronage and cronyism, and the appointment of weak government watchdogs and law enforcement officers, Democracy Watch has called for this change to the process for all Cabinet appointments in its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign. Ontario uses this appointment system to appoint provincial judges, and it is considered to be a world-leading process.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

---

Backgrounder

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson has greatly undermined various sections of the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) in past rulings by creating loopholes in the COIA that do not exist – such as:

1. her April 29, 2010 “Cheques Report” ruling claiming that political parties are not “persons” under the COIA and therefore it was fine for Conservative MPs and Cabinet ministers to hand out government cheques with the Conservative Party logo on them;
2. her May 13, 2010 “Raitt Report” ruling that it was fine for two lobbyists who were lobbying Minister Lisa Raitt to help raise thousands of dollars for her riding association because, you claimed, that only helped the association not her;
3. her December 2016 ruling that it was fine for Health Minister Jane Philpott to use the driving service company of one of her former campaign volunteers because it was the only such company Minister Philpott claimed she knew about (a ruling that creates a loophole allowing any Minister or other senior government officlal to use the same invalid excuse Minister Philpott used to give contracts to their friends or other party loyalists);
4. her baseless decision that the COIA only applies to financial interests despite the fact that the COIA’s section 2 definition of “private interest” does not in any way even suggest that the definition of “private interest” is restricted to only financial interests, and;
5. her baseless decision that the COIA only applies to close personal friends (there is no such definition of “friends” in the COIA).

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Federal ethics law and codes missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest. Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises to close the huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

Ruling meant complaints to Conflicts Commissioner by members of the public about MLAs are ineffective, and Commissioner’s rulings are not binding

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 24, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the documents it has filed in its appeal of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Affleck’s ruling from last January that no court challenges are allowed of B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser’s decisions because they are unreviewable opinions with no direct legal effect limiting the Premier’s conflicts of interest. The notice of appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal can be seen here.

The decision under appeal means that members of the public who make a complaint to the Commissioner about the Premier’s conflicts of interest are not entitled to a remedy, and are not even entitled to any assurance that the Commissioner himself has not been compromised by his own conflict of interest.

The ruling also stopped Democracy Watch’s court case filed last October challenging the Commissioner’s decisions last May and August that Premier Christy Clark’s high-priced, exclusive fundraising events don’t create conflicts of interest for her, and that the donations made at the events do not benefit her personally. Democracy Watch also challenged the Commissioner’s own conflict of interest in ruling on the situation given his son works for Premier Clark’s Cabinet.

“The court unfortunately decided that no one can challenge Commissioner Fraser’s unethical decision that it is legal and ethical for Premier Clark and Liberal Cabinet ministers to sell access to themselves at high-priced, invite-only secretive fundraising events, and that the events don’t create any conflicts of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time, and the court did not even consider this issue. For all these reasons, Democracy Watch is appealing the ruling.”

Jason Gratl of the law firm Gratl and Company, who is Democracy Watch’s counsel for the case, said: “We say simply that it is an error to find that conflicts of members of the Executive Council, including the Premier, are not always and not in this case protected by legislative privilege”.

Commissioner Fraser will have until late May to file his response to Democracy Watch’s appeal.

According to media reports, Premier Clark has hosted or attended several small, invitation-only fundraising events for the B.C. Liberals with ticket prices ranging from $2,000 to $20,000, and also attended an event in her riding association sponsored for $2,500 each by four sponsors. Premier Clark received an annual salary from the B.C. Liberals for, in part, fundraising activities over the past few years, and that is part of the reason she is in a conflict of interest.

The B.C. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits the Premier and all MLAs from exercising their official powers or performing any official duties or functions if they have an opportunity to further their private interest or if there is a reasonable perception that their private interest affects their actions or decisions (sections 2 and 3). It also prohibits them from receiving any gift or personal benefit directly or indirectly connected to their position (section 7).

Democracy Watch, which filed a complaint with Commissioner Fraser about the Premier’s fundraising events last March, takes the position that Premier Clark benefited personally and was in a conflict of interest when attending the events because she receives some of the money raised as her salary from the B.C. Liberal Party. Democracy Watch’s position is also that the events created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark that prohibit her from making decisions that affect any company or organization that had a representative at any of the events.

Commissioner Fraser ruled on May 4 and August 9, 2016 that the donations made at the events did not benefit Premier Clark personally, and did not amount to a private interest that put her in a conflict of interest. He essentially refused to rule on whether the donations created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark when she is making policy decisions that affect the donors – he didn’t even investigate to find out who attended the events.

Democracy Watch’s case also asked the court to rule that Commissioner Fraser should not have ruled on the complaints filed about the events because he was in a conflict of interest given that his son works as a deputy minister for the B.C. Liberal Cabinet. In 2012, Commissioner Fraser stepped aside and didn’t rule on a complaint filed about Premier Clark because of his son’s connection to the B.C. Liberals. Democracy Watch wanted the court to order a reexamination of the complaints by another person who is fully independent of all B.C. political parties. Justice Affleck did not consider this issue in his ruling.

“Democracy Watch’s position is that big donations made at private fundraising events where the politician is essentially selling access to themselves are a clear violation of the conflict-of-interest law, and we hope the B.C. Court of Appeal will agree and overrule Commissioner Fraser’s decision that the donations didn’t benefit Premier Clark or put her in a conflict of interest,” said Conacher. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time. Commissioner Fraser’s apparent conflict of interest and the legal errors in his ruling give the appeal court many reasons to reject his ruling on Premier Clark’s fundraising events.”

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition also called on B.C.’s political parties to change the provincial Conflict of Interest Act to make the Commissioner’s rulings clearly binding on politicians, and also to allow anyone to appeal to the courts for a review of any decision by the Commissioner, including about the Commissioner’s conflicts of interest.

“It is dangerously undemocratic for B.C. to have an ethics law that politicians can ignore, and an ethics commissioner who is an unaccountable czar, and so B.C.’s political ethics law must be changed to ensure the commissioner’s rulings are binding and that court challenges of the commissioner’s rulings and the commissioner’s conflicts of interest are allowed,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition also called on the B.C. government to make the same world-leading changes to the province’s political donation system (including at the municipal level) as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Democracy Watch detailed in a March 13th news release how inadequate the B.C. Liberals proposed changes are, and what key changes are needed to stop cash for access and the unethical influence of big money donations in B.C. politics. More than 6,000 B.C. voters have called for these changes through Democracy Watch’s Change.org petition.

“The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations,” said Conacher. “Any political party that refuses to support key changes to the B.C. political finance system changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics.”

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Jason Gratl, Gratl and Company, Tel: 604-694-1919

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign