Thursday, April 27, 2006

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch released the two letters it sent to federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro yesterday requesting that the Ethics Commissioner inform Democracy Watch about whether and when the Commissioner will rule on the two complaints Democracy Watch filed on March 14th about the switching of political parties by Belinda Stronach and David Emerson.  The complaint letters allege that federal ethics rules were violated by Stronach and Emerson, and by Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, in the two party-switching situations (To see the April 26th letter re: Emerson and Harper, click here -- To see the April 26th letter re: Stronach and Martin, click here -- To see the complaint letter re: Stronach and Martin, click here -- To see complaint letter re: Emerson and Harper, click here).

Unlike the opposition parties’ complaints about these situations, Democracy Watch called on the Ethics Commissioner to delegate his decision-making authority to a provincial ethics commissioner because Democracy Watch does not believe, based upon his record since he was appointed in May 2004, that the Commissioner can fairly, impartially or competently investigate and rule on its complaints.  Democracy Watch filed an application in court in September 2005 challenging the federal Ethics Commissioner for bias, and that application has been challenged with preliminary motions by the Ethics Commissioner.

Also in contrast to the opposition parties’ complaints, Democracy Watch’s complaints are about violations of different rules in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) which came into force in October 2004, and also about violations of rules in the 20-year-old Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code).

“The Ethics Commissioner is continuing his usual pattern of improper, negligent enforcement of the ethics rules by unreasonably delaying ruling on Democracy Watch’s complaints,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch’s position is that while Belinda Stronach may have violated the MPs Code, the actions of Paul Martin, David Emerson and Stephen Harper were violations of the Public Office Holders Code, given that all three were members of Cabinet when the party-switching actions occurred.

Democracy Watch’s complaints call for an investigation of whether the party-switchers, and the Prime Ministers who rewarded the party switching, violated the requirements in the both codes to act “with honesty” and “uphold the highest ethical standards” in ways that increase “public trust and confidence” in their integrity and the integrity of the federal government.

Ethics Commissioner Bernard J. Shapiro
Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Parliament of Canada
P.O. Box 16, Centre Block
22nd Floor, 66 Slater
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

April 26, 2006

RE: Awaiting your ruling on Democracy Watch’s March 14, 2006 complaint concerning actions of David Emerson and Stephen Harper

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

On March 27, 2006, Democracy Watch sent you a letter by registered mail responding to a letter received that day dated March 21, 2006 from Micheline Rondeau-Parent of Communications and Parliamentary relations division of your office.

Democracy Watch has not received any response from you to the questions posed in its March 27th letter, nor has Democracy Watch received any response from you to Democracy Watch’s complaint about the actions of David Emerson and Stephen Harper which was filed with you on March 14, 2006.

Given that your report of March 20, 2006 did not address any of the issues raised in Democracy Watch’s complaint, and given your lack of response to Democracy Watch’s letter of March 27, 2006, Democracy Watch is still awaiting a decision from you on Democracy Watch’s March 14th complaint.

Please inform Democracy Watch by reply letter of the status of your review of Democracy Watch’s March 14th complaint, including if possible when you expect to rule on the complaint.

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

Ethics Commissioner Bernard J. Shapiro
Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Parliament of Canada
P.O. Box 16, Centre Block
22nd Floor, 66 Slater
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

March 27, 2006

RE: Your letter of March 21, 2006 about report on David Emerson and Stephen Harper

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

I received today a letter dated March 21, 2006 from Micheline Rondeau-Parent of Communications and Parliamentary relations division of your office (Please see enclosed letter).

As you can see, the letter acknowledges receipt of Democracy Watch’s March 14, 2006 complaint letter concerning the actions of David Emerson and Stephen Harper that alleged that Mr. Emerson violated rules in both the the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) and the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code), and that Mr. Harper also violated rules in the Public Office Holders Code.

The letter then goes on to state that:
“With respect to this issue, as you know, the Ethics Commissioner’s report into this matter was released on Monday, March 20.”

As you know, your March 20, 2006 report did not mention the Public Office Holders Code at all, nor did it contain a rules-based, judicially proper evaluation of Mr. Emerson’s and Mr. Harper’s actions with regard to the rules in both codes that Democracy Watch alleges they have violated.

As you also know, Democracy Watch’s allegations are based on the fact that Mr. Emerson did not act “with honesty” with his party and voters in his riding, and are also based on Democracy Watch’s belief that Mr. Emerson’s and Mr. Harper’s actions did not “uphold the highest ethical standards” and as a result did not enhance public “confidence and trust” in the integrity of themselves, the House of Commons, and the government, nor did their actions go beyond what Canadian law (which includes both codes) requires nor did their actions “bear the closest public scrutiny.”  Both the codes require that all actions of all federal politicians comply with all of these rules.

As has been clearly documented in many media reports, Mr. Emerson was a Liberal Cabinet minister and then election candidate for the Liberal Party and was very critical of the Conservative Party and its election platform during the campaign, including pledging publicly to be the “worst enemy” of Stephen Harper if the Conservatives won and Mr. Harper became Prime Minister.  Sometime between election day, January 23, 2006, and February 6, 2006, Mr. Emerson (while still a Liberal Cabinet minister) accepted the offer of Mr. Harper to become a member of the Conservatives’ caucus and the Prime Minister’s new Cabinet.  Given these actions and statements, it is very clear that Mr. Emerson did not “act with honesty” with the Liberal Party nor with voters in his riding.

Beyond these clear facts, Democracy Watch has on file many documents, and is fully prepared to provide these documents to you as further evidence that its allegations are both based upon reasonable grounds and are also true.

As a result of all of the above, the letter from Ms. Rondeau-Parent is very puzzling and, of course, raises the question: Are you claiming by sending this letter that you have ruled, with your March 20th report, on Democracy Watch’s March 14th complaint about Mr. Emerson and Mr. Harper?

Please respond to this question as soon as possible.  I look forward to hearing back from you very soon.

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

Ethics Commissioner Bernard J. Shapiro
Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Parliament of Canada
P.O. Box 16, Centre Block
22nd Floor, 66 Slater
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

April 26, 2006

RE: Awaiting your ruling on Democracy Watch’s March 14, 2006 complaint concerning actions of Belinda Stronach and Paul Martin

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

On March 14, 2006, Democracy Watch sent you a letter by registered mail requesting an investigation of what Democracy Watch believes is a violation of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) by MP Belinda Stronach, and a violation of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code) by Paul Martin.

On March 27, 2006, Democracy Watch subsequently received a letter dated March 16, 2006 from Micheline Rondeau-Parent of Communications and Parliamentary relations division of your office acknowledging receipt of Democracy Watch’s March 14th letter, and then a letter dated March 21, 2006 also from Ms. Rondeau-Parent stating that the matter raised in Democracy Watch’s letter of March 14th “is currently under advisement by the Ethics Commissioner.”

Democracy Watch has not received any response from you since concerning Democracy Watch’s complaint.

Please inform Democracy Watch by reply letter of the status of your review of Democracy Watch’s March 14th complaint, including if possible when you expect to rule on the complaint.

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

Ethics Commissioner Bernard J. Shapiro
Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Parliament of Canada
P.O. Box 16, Centre Block
22nd Floor, 66 Slater
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Fax: 613-995-7308

March 14, 2006

RE: Request for investigation into actions of Belinda Stronach and Paul Martin

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Democracy Watch is filing this letter to request an investigation of what Democracy Watch believes is a violation of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) by MP Belinda Stronach, and a violation of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code) by Paul Martin.

Democracy Watch’s position is that serious questions are raised by Belinda Stronach, with her action of switching in between elections from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party and negotiating a Cabinet posting as part of her switch, in terms of violation of the following rules of the MPs Code:

• “2.  Given that service in Parliament is a public trust, the House of Commons recognizes and declares that Members are expected, . . . (b) to fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each Member and in the House of Commons; (c) to perform their official duties and functions and arrange their private affairs in a manner that bears the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully discharged by simply acting within the law”

• “3. Every public office holder shall conform to the following principles: Ethical Standards - (1) Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced; Public Scrutiny - (2) Public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.”

Democracy Watch’s position is also that it is a violation of right to freedom of association in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to require the public to find an MP or senator who will file ethics complaints on their behalf, because it forces the public to associate with partisan politicians in order to file a complaint.  As a strictly non-partisan organization, Democracy Watch rights will be particularly negatively affected if you refuse to review this complaint, and Democracy Watch is fully prepared to defend its rights if necessary.

As you know, Democracy Watch has called upon you to resign and filed an application in September 2005 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging that you are biased against maintaining a reasonable standard of enforcement of federal ethics rules including the MPs Code.

Democracy Watch also has serious doubts about your competence and ability to enforce federal ethics rules properly in part based upon your self-admitted lack of experience and expertise in the area of ethics enforcement, and in part based upon your actions and statements between April 2004 and September 2005.  These doubts have only increased since Democracy Watch’s court application was filed given how you have handled (among other recent actions by you):

• the complaint filed against Conservative MP Deepak Ohbrai;
• the ruling in the complaint filed against Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal;
• the ruling in the complaint filed against Liberal MP David Smith, and;
• the decision not to initiate an investigation into the complaint filed against Liberal Cabinet minister Tony Valeri.

Democracy Watch’s position is that the federal ethics codes not only are very necessary, but also that the law requires that the codes be fairly, impartially, competently and strictly enforced.  Democracy Watch bases its position on the rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Hinchey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128 (Supreme Court of Canada 1996 ruling), and the Federal Court in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General) (F.C.), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 83 (Federal Court 2004 ruling).

Given the ample evidence that you have not enforced the codes fairly, impartially, competently and strictly since you were appointed in May 2004, and given that your weak and incompetent enforcement record has given cause for representatives of two federal political parties to approve a motion of non-confidence in you in June 2005, and has given cause for representatives of all four federal political parties to approve a motion to find you in contempt of Parliament in November 2005, Democracy Watch hopes that you will step aside one way or another to ensure that the investigation of, and ruling, on this complaint and other existing and future complaints are handled in the legally required and much-needed fair, impartial, competent and strict manner.

In the circumstances, we ask you to set an example of public accountability and address this complaint promptly and effectively.  Please let us hear from you on this matter within 30 days of the date of this letter.

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

Ethics Commissioner Bernard J. Shapiro
Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Parliament of Canada
P.O. Box 16, Centre Block
22nd Floor, 66 Slater
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Fax: 613-995-7308

March 14, 2006

RE: Request for investigation into actions of David Emerson and Stephen Harper

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Democracy Watch is filing this letter to request an investigation of what Democracy Watch believes is a violation of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) by MP David Emerson, and also a violation of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code) by David Emerson in his role as a Cabinet Minister, Stephen Harper in his role as Prime Minister.

Democracy Watch’s position is that serious questions are raised by David Emerson, with his action (while an MP and also still a Liberal Cabinet minister) of switching right after an election from the Liberals to the Conservatives and negotiating a Cabinet posting as part of his switch, in terms of violation of the following rules of the MPs Code:

• “2.  Given that service in Parliament is a public trust, the House of Commons recognizes and declares that Members are expected, . . . (b) to fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each Member and in the House of Commons; (c) to perform their official duties and functions and arrange their private affairs in a manner that bears the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully discharged by simply acting within the law”

• “3. Every public office holder shall conform to the following principles: Ethical Standards - (1) Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced; Public Scrutiny - (2) Public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.”

Democracy Watch’s position is also that it is a violation of right to freedom of association in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to require the public to find an MP or senator who will file ethics complaints on their behalf, because it forces the public to associate with partisan politicians in order to file a complaint.  As a strictly non-partisan organization, Democracy Watch rights will be particularly negatively affected if you refuse to review this complaint, and Democracy Watch is fully prepared to defend its rights if necessary.

As you know, Democracy Watch has called upon you to resign and filed an application in September 2005 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging that you are biased against maintaining a reasonable standard of enforcement of federal ethics rules including the MPs Code.

Democracy Watch also has serious doubts about your competence and ability to enforce federal ethics rules properly in part based upon your self-admitted lack of experience and expertise in the area of ethics enforcement, and in part based upon your actions and statements between April 2004 and September 2005.  These doubts have only increased since Democracy Watch’s court application was filed given how you have handled (among other recent actions by you):

• the complaint filed against Conservative MP Deepak Ohbrai;
• the ruling in the complaint filed against Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal;
• the ruling in the complaint filed against Liberal MP David Smith, and;
• the decision not to initiate an investigation into the complaint filed against Liberal Cabinet minister Tony Valeri.

Democracy Watch’s position is that the federal ethics codes not only are very necessary, but also that the law requires that the codes be fairly, impartially, competently and strictly enforced.  Democracy Watch bases its position on the rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Hinchey, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128 (Supreme Court of Canada 1996 ruling), and the Federal Court in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General) (F.C.), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 83 (Federal Court 2004 ruling).

Given the ample evidence that you have not enforced the codes fairly, impartially, competently and strictly since you were appointed in May 2004, and given that your weak and incompetent enforcement record has given cause for representatives of two federal political parties to approve a motion of non-confidence in you in June 2005, and has given cause for representatives of all four federal political parties to approve a motion to find you in contempt of Parliament in November 2005, Democracy Watch hopes that you will step aside one way or another to ensure that the investigation of, and ruling, on this complaint and other existing and future complaints are handled in the legally required and much-needed fair, impartial, competent and strict manner.

In the circumstances, we ask you to set an example of public accountability and address this complaint promptly and effectively.  Please let us hear from you on this matter within 30 days of the date of this letter.

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