---

To see a related Canada.com article, click here

---

Thursday, October 18, 2012

OTTAWA—On Monday the whistleblower charity FAIR (Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform) was ordered off the Advisory Committee of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s office (PSIC) – the agency charged with protecting government whistleblowers.

Integrity Commissioner Mario Dion stated that this action was because FAIR was “Constantly undermining the work of this Office in the media… and in so doing discouraging potential whistleblowers from coming forward is inconsistent with the role of a PSIC Advisory Committee member.”

Mr. Dion’s action was in response to a letter to the editor by FAIR’s executive director David Hutton that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday.

A federal judge recently handed down a ruling highly critical of PSIC’s handling of a case, saying that the investigators made so many mistakes that these amounted to ‘a clear breach of the common law duty of procedural fairness’. This ruling was the subject of a Citizen article by Andrew Duffy. Mr. Hutton wrote to add that the judge’s findings mirrored the frustrations expressed by more than 30 whistleblowers and their lawyers who had spoken to FAIR about their dealings with PSIC.

Two other civil society organizations, which also sit on the Advisory Committee, voiced their alarm at this action, and called for FAIR’s immediate reinstatement.

“I believe that FAIR is being kicked off the committee for doing its job properly by publicly representing the experience and the views of whistleblowers – who mostly have no voice other than through organizations like ours” said Allan Cutler, president of Canadians for Accountability. “Based on what we hear from whistleblowers, PSIC’s treatment of them is often inadequate and disrespectful, and their investigations often seem unprofessional. There’s nothing in Mr. Hutton’s letter that our group hasn’t already been saying.”

“We are shocked at Mr. Dion’s decision since FAIR’s participation in the Advisory Committee was valuable to us, and we thought, to Mr. Dion” said Tyler Sommers, coordinator of Democracy Watch. “It’s easy for agencies like this to become so absorbed in their internal processes that they forget the perspective of their clients.”

Both groups indicated that they do not intend to continue on the Advisory Committee if FAIR is not reinstated. “Without us it’s difficult to see that this committee will have much legitimacy, since it will exclude the only civil society organizations in Canada whose sole mandate is to represent whistleblowers” said Allan Cutler.

Citizen article: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Federal+judge+slams+shoddy+probe+into+whistleblower/7370977/story.html

Letter to the editor: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Whistleblowers+deserve+better/7385127/story.html

Mr. Dion’s email to FAIR: http://fairwhistleblower.ca/files/fair/docs/2012-10-15_Letter_from_Mario_Dion.pdf

– 30 –

Contact Information:

Allan Cutler, President, Canadians for Accountability: (613) 863-4671

Ian Bron, Managing Director, Canadians for Accountability: (613) 304-8049

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Chair of the Open Government Coalition: (613) 241-5179

---

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

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

OTTAWA—Today civil society organizations welcomed a federal judge’s condemnation of shoddy investigations conducted by the government’s whistleblower watchdog. Unfortunately this is not an isolated case, they say, and the agency’s failure may have contributed to the inaction that led to the XL Foods disaster.

In the court ruling Madam Justice Mactavish found that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s investigators made so many mistakes that this amounted to a ‘clear breach of the common law duty of procedural fairness’. Key witnesses were never interviewed and PSIC ‘failed to investigate obviously crucial evidence’. The whistleblower was kept in the dark regarding the results of the investigation and given no opportunity to see or comment on the report before a decision was made – in spite of promises that he could do so. Although the investigation took an inordinate length of time (21 months) the judge found that it was neither thorough nor fair.

“PSIC’s ineffectiveness has serious consequences for the public – like the XL Foods recall” said David Hutton, executive director of Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform (FAIR). ”This entire fiasco could likely have been avoided if the CFIA inspectors had believed that they could bypass their bosses and safely report their concerns to someone independent – and that action would be taken. But the judge’s ruling confirms that they had good reason to fear that their concerns might not be investigated properly by PSIC, and that they would not be protected from the reprisals that would surely follow.”

Unfortunately the situation the Federal Court ruled appears typical of how PSIC treats those it is charged with protecting. Since the agency was created, whistleblower organizations like FAIR and Canadians for Accountability have received calls from more than 30 public servants (and their lawyers) trying to deal with the agency. The judge’s findings closely mirror these people’s frustrations.

“Whistleblowers consistently tell us that PSIC is a black hole into which they pour serious allegations – and hear nothing back” said Hutton. “They are kept in the dark about what’s happening and given false assurances. After hearing nothing for months they finally receive a rejection letter written in bureaucratic legalese. They have no idea of how this decision was made or based on what evidence, and Integrity Commissioner Mario Dion and his staff aren’t telling – since this would apparently ‘violate the privacy’ of the alleged wrongdoers.”

“You cannot go to PSIC simply on the basis that you’ve seen something that’s clearly wrong” said Allan Cutler. “You need a lawyer just to complete their application form – to help you figure out which sections of the Act are applicable and what statutes may have been violated. Courageous people, who are putting their careers on the line to protect the public, are met with disrespect and bureaucratic obstacles.”

“The court ruling and the XL Foods fiasco show clearly that the federal government must stop being negligent and immediately launch the illegally overdue review of the federal whistleblower protection law, and ensure the law is changed to require the Integrity Commissioner to actually protect whistleblowers in every case,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

– 30 –

Contact Information:

David Hutton, Executive Director, FAIR (Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform) (613) 567-1511

Allan Cutler, President, Canadians for Accountability: (613) 863-4671

Ian Bron, Managing Director, Canadians for Accountability: (613) 304-8049

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Chair of the Open Government Coalition: (613) 241-5179

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

---

Set out below is an op-ed by Democracy Watch Board Member Duff Conacher which was published in the Hill Times on October 15, 2012

---

The corruption scandal in Quebec provides more evidence of how negligent federal politicians were in December 2006 when they approved changes to federal law to require audits of suspicious bank account transactions, but failed to apply those changes to Canadian politicians and government officials.

It also shows how negligent Quebec politicians and watchdog agencies have been for years, if not decades.

In December 2006, federal politicians quickly and quietly passed Bill C-25, amending the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA).

To comply with Canada’s commitments under Sec. 52 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, and the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, Bill C-25 should have required Canadian financial institutions to monitor the bank accounts of senior politicians and government officials and their families and associates in all levels of government, adding them to the watch-list of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC).

But Bill C-25 only added foreign politicians and key officials and their families to FINTRAC’s watch-list—no Canadian politician or official was covered by the new system.

As well, as Democracy Watch has proposed for the past decade, ethics and political finance watchdog agencies in Quebec should have been doing random audits of donations and gifts, the donation limit should have been lowered and disclosure of organizers of fundraising events and donor’s employers and family members required, a whistleblower protection law covering all levels of government should have been passed, and government auditors should have been able to determine years ago that provincial and municipal governments were not getting value for the money they spent.

If Bill C-25 had covered Canadian politicians and officials six years ago, and politicians had strengthened laws, and watchdog agencies had increased their enforcement actions a decade ago, the corruption in Quebec would have been discovered much sooner.

Clearly, the laws must now be changed to strengthen the rules, and to require stronger enforcement, to help stop corruption in the future. Unfortunately, the provincial parties’ election platforms did not promise to make the many changes needed to actually stop corruption.

---

For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

---

Set out below is an op-ed by Democracy Watch Board Member Duff Conacher which was published in Edmonton Sun on October 4, 2012 and the Globe and Mail on October 5, 2012

---

While all Canadian politicians should have more resources and do more to hold the government and Cabinet ministers accountable, especially on spending issues, their power to make rulings and penalize ministers and others should be taken away because they almost always make  decisions based on politics and party lines, instead of principles and facts.

Ontario Liberal Cabinet minister Chris Bentley is facing the likelihood of being found in contempt by the provincial legislature because opposition parties have a majority of seats — there is no way he would have faced such a ruling if the Liberals had a majority.

The power of the Speaker of the legislature to make such rulings should also be taken away because the Speaker is also a partisan politician.

The best way to ensure honesty, transparency and respect by all politicians is to pass an honesty-in-politics law, close loopholes in open government laws, increase the standards of behaviour required in the legislature, and have all complaints referred to the independent agencies that watch over integrity and open government.

The commissioners who head these agencies do need to be made more independent by requiring approval of appointments from all party leaders, and in some cases more accountable by ensuring all their rulings can be appealed to the courts if the make a factual or legal error, but other than that they have much more fair investigation and ruling processes than politicians do.

Making these changes would result in more democratic good government across Canada.

---

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

---

Set out below is an op-ed by Democracy Watch Board Member Duff Conacher which was published in Rabble.ca on October 2, 2012 and the Hill Times on October 8, 2012

---

Bruce Carson, former senior advisor to Prime Minister Harper, is in court charged with the crime of taking payment from a client while promising he could win a decision from the federal government (known as influence peddling).

So why did prosecutors decide not to prosecute Carson for failing to register and disclose his lobbying activities under the federal Lobbying Act?  Likely because Carson, and his client, have both claimed that he was not paid to lobby, only for advice.  Only people who are paid to lobby are required to register under the Act.

Treasury Board minister Tony Clement recently announced the changes the federal Conservatives plan to make to the Lobbying Act, and both he and all MPs on the House of Commons committee that recommended changes to the Act ignored the loophole exploited by Carson (the same loophole Rahim Jaffer exploited).

As long as unpaid lobbyists are not required to register, no lobbyist will ever be prosecuted for violating the Lobbying Act because all they have to do when caught lobbying without registering is claim, as Carson and Jaffer did, that they were not paid for the lobbying they did.

Also as long as this loophole is left open, there will be no five-year ban on federal Cabinet ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, their senior staff and senior government officials lobbying the federal government after they leave their position.

All of them will continue to be allowed to lobby the government the day after they leave, in secret without registering, as long as they are not paid to do the lobbying and are careful whom they lobby. And because they are not required to register this lobbying, they are also not required to follow the ethics rules in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

As well, both the House Committee and Minister Clement ignored the loopholes that allow for secret lobbying if a lobbyist is lobbying about the enforcement, interpretation or application of laws and regulations (which is a huge area of lobbying, especially for big businesses), and that allow for secret emails, texts, phone calls and even meetings between lobbyists and Cabinet ministers and senior government officials as long as the minister or official initiates the communication or meeting (which they do whenever they want to have secret, unethical relations with a lobbyist — only oral, pre-arranged communications initiated by the lobbyist are currently required to be disclosed).

In other words, even if the Conservatives make the changes proposed by the House Committee and Tony Clement, secret, unethical lobbying by the most powerful former politicians, staff and government officials, and by many other lobbyists, will still be legal.

The Conservatives promised during the 2006 election to end secret lobbying of the federal government.  They continue to break that promise.

As well, the seven provinces that have a lobbying disclosure law have the same loopholes in their laws that allow for secret, unethical lobbying, and the three provinces and two territories that do not have a lobbying law obviously also allow secret, unethical lobbying.

Only the City of Toronto’s by-law requires unpaid lobbyists to register and disclose their lobbying activities (although the by-law has other loopholes such as not requiring non-profit organizations to register).

Given that secrecy in government is a recipe for corruption, waste and abuse of the public, Canadians deserve better from all their governments.  All lobbying must be disclosed, no matter who is lobbying, for how long, on whatever issue, and whether or not they are paid.

If this is not required across the country, all Canadians should continue to expect to see more cases like Bruce Carson and Rahim Jaffer, as government decision-making processes continue to be corrupted by secret, unethical lobbying.

---

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