On Friday, November 9, 2007, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that "it's impossible, frankly, for the government to make an impartial judgement on how to proceed" in responding to the situation involving Harper advisor and former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and German business promoter Karlheinz Schreiber, showing that he recognized that members of his government are in a conflict of interest with regard to the situation.

The conflict of interest exists because Mr. Schreiber named Mr. Harper in his affidavit filed in court; Mr. Mulroney has advised Mr. Harper and has significant connections with many members of the Conservative government, and; Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Harper and his Cabinet ministers are connected through the same political party.

However, Mr. Harper then contradicted himself and said that he will select a person to investigate, and that person will give advice to him and his Cabinet ministers and then they will decide how to proceed.

On Tuesday, November 13, 2007, under pressure from opposition parties and political commentators, and in response to Brian Mulroney’s request, Prime Minister Harper switched from appointing an investigator to appointing an advisor who will recommend terms of reference for a public inquiry and other possible steps, with the Prime Minister still deciding how to proceed.  The next day, Mr. Harper appointed David Johnston as the advisor, and while Mr. Johnston is a law professor and currently president of the University of Waterloo, he was also appointed by then- Prime Minister Mulroney to the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy in 1988, and reported directly to Mr. Mulroney in that position. 

Mr. Harper's first instinct about the existence of a conflict of interest was correct -- his involvement, or the involvement of Conservative Cabinet ministers, or Conservative MPs, or the Conservative Party in the selection of the advisor means that the advisor is neither independent nor impartial (no matter how many times Mr. Harper claims that he is).

Secondly, the advisor’s report should not be submitted to the Prime Minister, but instead either to an independent prosecutor for a decision whether to prosecute, or to an independent commissioner (appointed under the Inquiries Act) to be explored further through public hearings and a fact-finding report (possibly followed by a decision to prosecute).

If Prime Minister Harper had not broken his promise to establish an independent Public Appointments Commission, it could have ensured a merit-based, impartial selection of an advisor, prosecutor and commissioner.  So now, to ensure independence and impartiality, the Prime Minister must allow all federal party leaders in the House of Commons to approve the advisor, prosecutor and commissioner, and the terms of reference of the inquiry.

The Prime Minister selection of the advisor, and plan to have the advisor report to him so he can decide how to proceed, is a step backwards in federal government ethics rules and law enforcement to the almost completely ineffective 1994 to 2004 period when Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson (who had no investigative powers) reported behind closed doors to Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his Cabinet ministers on so-called investigations, and then Chrétien decided whether he himself, or one of his Cabinet ministers or staff, had broken federal ethics rules.

Mr. Harper's plan also raises all the same questions about lack of independence and impartiality that have been raised about Harper’s selection of former Parti Québecois Cabinet Minister Daniel Paille to investigate public opinion research practices by the Liberal government between 1990 and 1993 and report back to Harper, and about former Prime Minister Paul Martin's selection of Justice John Gomery (who now faces a court challenge alleging bias) as the inquiry commissioner into the Adscam sponsorship scandal.

When Canadians face allegations about questionable actions by themselves or their friends, they don't get to decide whether there will be an investigation, nor do they choose the person who will investigate them, who will decide how to deal with the evidence gathered, and who will judge them.  The Prime Minister should not be allowed to make these decisions or choose these people either.

To prevent such conflicted responses to similar allegations in the future, the Inquiries Act must be changed as soon as possible to allow a majority of federal party leaders to launch an inquiry, and to require approval by all federal party leaders of inquiry commissioners.

In contrast to the steps proposed on Friday by Prime Minister Harper, these steps will ensure that the Mulroney-Schreiber situation is fairly and impartially investigated and ruled upon, as well as all similarly questionable situations that arise in the future.

Whether or not these steps are taken, federal political party leaders should not hesitate to initiate inquiries into the many similarly questionable situations that occurred in federal politics over the past 15 years.

The Mulroney-Schreiber situation is only one example of many revealing how loopholes in the federal government’s donations, gifts, lobbying and ethics rules, and lack of enforcement of these rules, are the real scandal. 

Many party leaders have baited voters with false promises, then switched direction when elected, and then falsely claimed that they have kept their promises.  Former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson, and former Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro, either refused to investigate or approved highly questionable activities by more than 20 federal Cabinet ministers and Cabinet staff during their reigns of error. 

Many federal politicians and political staff have had questionable business dealings or became lobbyists soon after leaving office; billions have been spent on questionable contracts (and more than $40 million from the Adscam sponsorship scandal is still missing); many unqualified party loyalists have been appointed to important, high-paying positions; many secret donations have been made to federal politicians, and; many lobbyists have worked for or raised money for Cabinet ministers they were lobbying.

Any federal politician who is a truly ethical leader will push for fully independent and impartial inquiries into all of these situations, into all the ways in which the federal government’s accountability system is the scandal, and will continue pushing until Canadians have the honest, ethical, open and waste-preventing federal government they deserve.