Tuesday, April 10, 2001

OTTAWA - Today, in an open letter to the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), Democracy Watch called for an investigation of the Prime Minister's actions concerning the golf course and inn in Shawinigan and other situations (Please see text of letter to LSUC set out below). The Prime Minister is an honourary member of the LSUC, and conflict-of-interest rules that apply to the LSUC members appear to prohibit actions such as those undertaken by the Prime Minister in various situations.

According to the LSUC Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 6.05, entitled "The Lawyer in Public Office", a lawyer in public office, among other things, "shall not allow professional or personal interests to conflict with the proper discharge of official duties." (subsection (2)). The Commentary that accompanies this subsection states that "Subject to any special rules applicable to the particular public office, the lawyer holding the office who sees that there is a possibility of a conflict of interest should declare the possible conflict at the earliest opportunity, and not take part in any consideration, discussion or vote concerning the matter in question." (Please contact Democracy Watch for full copy of Rule 6.05)

The LSUC has told Democracy Watch that its rules do not apply to honourary members, but Democracy Watch believes that even if this is the case the LSUC should use the rules as a guide for a review of the situation and whether the Prime Minister's honourary membership in the LSUC should be continued. The Prime Minister is still described as a lawyer on the Parliament website.

"As a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada I think that it should undertake an investigation and review of the Prime Minister's honourary membership based on his actions in Shawinigan and in other situations," said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

In its letter to the LSUC, Democracy Watch calls for an investigation of not only the golf course and inn situation, but also the Prime Minister's other actions with regard to fundraising for the Liberal Party of Canada, designing and approving the access-for-cash scheme at the Summit of the Americas, and grant applications involving René Fugère. Democracy Watch has filed complaints with the federal Ethics Counsellor concerning all of these situations, but has no confidence that the Ethics Counsellor will impartially investigate and determine whether ethics violations have occurred.

"There has not been an independent, impartial investigation of the Prime Minister's actions in many questionable situations because the Ethics Counsellor is a lapdog," said Aaron Freeman, Board member of Democracy Watch. "The law society can close this accountability gap by undertaking an investigation."

Robert Armstrong
Treasurer, The Law Society of Upper Canada
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. W.
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N6

Fax: (416) 947-5967

April 10, 2001

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

We are filing this letter to request that the Law Society of Upper Canada investigate situations that Democracy Watch believes raise serious questions about the honourary membership Prime Minister Jean Chrétien currently enjoys in the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The situations are as follows:

1. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's actions concerning the golf course and inn in Shawinigan, about which some details are available (as summarized in several recent media reports) and other details remain unknown;
2. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's actions in relation to the activities of René Fugère, an unpaid aide of the Prime Minister who lobbied for federal grants for various private entities but did not register as a lobbyist under the federal Lobbyists Registration Act (details available from Democracy Watch);
3. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's actions (if any) in relation to the design and approval of the access-for-cash scheme for corporations at the Summit of the Americas (details available from Democracy Watch); and
4. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's actions in speaking at fundraising events for the Liberal Party of Canada (the Liberal Party is a private entity -- details available from Democracy Watch).

As you know, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has refused to date to appoint an independent body to undertake an inquiry into the situation described above under #1 to determine whether the Prime Minister violated federal ethics rules with his actions. The Prime Minister is the only person in Parliament who can appoint such a body.

Democracy Watch has filed requests with the federal Ethics Counsellor to investigate the other three situations outlined above, but we have little faith that the Ethics Counsellor will investigate some of the situations (our request concerning situation #4 dates back to March 20, 2000, but we have yet to receive a response from the Ethics Counsellor, even though he committed in a March 29, 2000 letter that he would respond to our request) and we have little faith that his investigations and rulings will be undertaken impartially given that he is under the Prime Minister's control.

Contained within the Law Society of Upper Canada's Rules of Professional Conduct is Rule 6.05, entitled "The Lawyer in Public Office". Under this rule, a lawyer in public office, among other things, "shall not allow professional or personal interests to conflict with the proper discharge of official duties." (subsection (2)). The Commentary that accompanies this subsection states that "Subject to any special rules applicable to the particular public office, the lawyer holding the office who sees that there is a possibility of a conflict of interest should declare the possible conflict at the earliest opportunity, and not take part in any consideration, discussion or vote concerning the matter in question."

We have been told by Law Society staff that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to honourary members. We request that the Law Society review both the application of the rules to honourary members (we feel the rules should apply) and also that the Law Society use the rules as a guide for an investigation of the Prime Minister's actions and concurrent review of the honourary membership in the Law Society now enjoyed by the Prime Minister.

We believe that the granting and maintenance of honourary memberships in the Law Society of Upper Canada should be based upon the standards the Law Society sets for all of its members, especially when the person who is being granted the honourary membership has been legally trained, and holds a position that falls within the scope and applications of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We feel it is entirely relevant to this investigation and review that the Prime Minister is still described as a lawyer on the Parliament website. We also feel that the standards set out in the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders' are also relevant to this review, as the Code requires public office holders, among other things:

• under Part I, sub-section 3(1), " to uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and maintained."
• under Part I, sub-section.3(2), "to perform their official duties ... in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law."

We are filing this initial request fully aware that you will require more details before determining whether the Law Society of Upper Canada will undertake the review we are requesting.

Therefore, we look forward to hearing from you and providing details of the situations which, we feel, warrant a review of the application of conduct rules to honourary members, and a review of the honourary membership of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in the Law Society.

Sincerely,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Democracy Watch