[Democracy Watch Logo]













     Français
News Release

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT’S HALF-MEASURES A
HALF-STEP FORWARD IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, NOT THE GIANT STEP FORWARD PROMISED BY THE CONSERVATIVES -- DEMOCRACY WATCH RE-FILES ITS ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST
PRIME MINISTER, TREASURY BOARD MINISTER AND PMO STAFFER FOR BEING DISHONEST ABOUT BROKEN ELECTION PROMISES

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

OTTAWA - Today, as Bill C-2 (the so-called “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA)) received final approval, Democracy Watch announced that it has re-filed the ethics complaint it filed with the federal Ethics Commissioner last May against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Treasury Board minister John Baird, and Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) staff member Sandra Buckler for being dishonest about the Conservative government’s failure to include all measures promised during and after the recent federal election in Bill C-2, and for claiming that key ethics rules are included in the FAA (when, in fact, the FAA deletes these rules).

Bill C-2 is likely the toughest anti-corruption law ever passed in Canada, as Minister Baird has claimed, and the bill does make 30 important changes that limit political donations to democratic levels, make the watchdog for lobbyists and other accountability watchdogs more independent and powerful, require the disclosure of more information (especially about government spending), and ensure that responsibility for spending decisions is clear in more cases.

However, as a result of the Conservatives' broken promises, and the many other ongoing loopholes, the federal government's accountability system is still far from ensuring clean government.

The complaint alleges that they have violated the rules in the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Code -- See link to the Code on the following webpage: http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/public_office_holders/conflict_of_interest) that require them to “act with honesty” (subsection 3(1) of the Code).  Incredibly, one of the ways in which they have not acted with honesty is that they failed to mention in any of the materials released to the public when the FAA was introduced in the House of Commons on April 11, 2006, nor in any subsequent interview, that the FAA proposes to remove from the Code the key ethics rule that requires senior politicians, their staff, and senior public servants to “act with honesty.”

As well, John Baird claimed last week that the Accountability Act will produce “clean government” which, according to the Conservatives own viewpoint, is not true because the Conservatives in November 2005 set out 52 measures needed to clean up the federal government, and promised an Act containing all 52 measures.  However, Bill C-2 only contains 30 of the 52 measures.

In a report filed with the complaint letter to the Ethics Commissioner, Democracy Watch revealed the details of all 22 broken promises.(Please see the complaint letter and Backgrounder below for all the details).

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his staff, and Treasury Board Minister John Baird have all been dishonest with Canadians in claiming that the Federal Accountability Act keeps all the election promises made by the Conservatives and strengthens ethics rules and will produce a clean federal government, and Democracy Watch believes they have violated federal ethics rules with their dishonesty,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.  “The Conservatives baited voters with false election promises, and then switched direction when they won, violating the fundamental right of voters to have honesty in politics.”

In response to Democracy Watch’s complaint filed in May, the Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro refused to examine the complaint and suggested that Democracy Watch participate in the parliamentary review of Bill C-2 and push for the missing measures to be added to Bill C-2 (To see the Ethics Commissioner's letter, click here).  Democracy Watch did participate in the parliamentary review, and opposition parties attempted to add many of the missing measures to Bill C-2.  The Conservatives rejected all of those attempts, and as a result made it very clear that they, with full intent, were breaking their election promises.

Democracy Watch re-filed its ethics complaint with the Ethics Commissioner on November 22, 2006.

On his first day as Prime Minister, Stephen Harper broke five election promises when he released his new Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Code).  The five promises were all contained in the “Stand Up for Accountability” (“Federal Accountability Act”) section of the Conservative Party’s election platform, and on February 6th when the new Cabinet was introduced Conservative transition team member Derek Burney and the government’s news release falsely claimed that five changes were made to the Code as part of the many measures the new Prime Minister had implemented immediately because they did not require legislation to be implemented.

A couple of weeks later, when questioned by media about Democracy Watch’s February 22nd news release that detailed how the five promised measures had not been included in the Code, PMO staff member Sandra Buckler claimed that the Code was a “transition document” and that all five of the promised measures would be included in the recently introduced Federal Accountability Act (FAA).

In fact, four of the five measures were not included in the FAA, and as a result four loopholes were left in the ethics rules for Cabinet ministers, their staff, some Cabinet appointees, and senior public servants.

In addition to these four broken promises, nine other promised measures were not included in the FAA, resulting in a total of 14 broken promises.

 The 14 broken promises are as follows:

  1. the promise to "Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law" (In fact, the Federal Accountability Act (FAA) deletes five of the rules in the current Code);
  2. the promise to "Make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the Ethics Code" (In fact, the FAA increases the number of part-timers and unpaid advisers not covered by most of the requirements in the Code);
  3. the promise to "Extend to five years the period during which former ministers, ministerial staffers, and senior public servants cannot lobby government" (In fact, unless Cabinet ministers put ministerial staff on a list, the staff person will be allowed, as they were already, to become a lobbyist one year after they leave their staff position);
  4. the promise to "Close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests" (In fact, the FAA does not close these loopholes);
  5. the promise to "Allow members of the public - not just politicians - to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner" (In fact, the FAA only allows politicians to file complaints);
  6. the promise to “Give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators” (In fact, the FAA does not empower the Ethics Commissioner to fine violators of many ethics rules);
  7. the promise to "Require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists" (In fact, the FAA does not include this requirement);
  8. the promise to "Create an independent Parliamentary Budget Office" (In fact, the FAA allows Cabinet to dismiss the Officer at any time for any reason, which means the Officer will not have a key safeguard needed to act independently);
  9. the promise to publish "all government public opinion research . . . within six months of the completion of the project" (In fact, the FAA only requires some government institutions to publish some research);
  10. the promise to "Ensure that all Canadians who report government wrongdoing are protected, not just public servants" (In fact, the FAA does not even protect all public servant whistleblowers);
  11. the promise to "Require the prompt public disclosure of information revealed by whistleblowers . . ." (In fact, the FAA prohibits the disclosure of much of the information revealed by whistleblowers);
  12. the promise to “Establish monetary rewards for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing or save taxpayer dollars” (In fact, the FAA did contain a $2,000 maximum reward, but this measure was cut from the bill during the parliamentary review process with support from the Conservatives);
  13. the promise to "Establish a Public Appointments Commission to set merit-based requirements for appointments to government boards, commissions and agencies, to ensure that competitions for posts are widely publicized and fairly conducted" (In fact, the FAA does not require Cabinet to create the Commission (it only allows Cabinet to do so) and since a parliamentary committee rejected the Prime Minister Harper’s nominee for Commission chair, the Prime Minister has derailed the Commission), and;
  14. the promise to "Appoint a Procurement Auditor . . ." (In fact, the FAA does not require Cabinet to appoint the Auditor (it only allows Cabinet to do so) and it does not give the Auditor promised powers needed to ensure fair and transparent procurement practices).
“Canadians deserve better thananother dishonest Prime Minister, especially when Prime Minister Harper has broken promises that guaranteed a clean-up of the federal government and effective measures to ensure that public officials act honestly, ethically, openly and prevent waste," said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

In addition to the above 14 broken promises, the Conservatives failed to include the following promised open-government measures in the Federal Accountability Act (FAA), but the Conservatives have initiated a parliamentary committee review of the federal Access to Information Act and so they may still keep these promises.

The Conservatives promised to change the ATI Act in the following ways:

  • "Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act";
  • "Give the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of information";
  • expand the ATI Act to all "foundations, and organizations that spend taxpayers’ money or perform public functions";
  • "Subject the exclusion of Cabinet confidences to review by the Information Commissioner";
  • "Oblige public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions";
  • "Provide a general public interest override for all exemptions, so that the public interest is put before the secrecy of the government";
  • "Ensure that all exemptions from the disclosure of government information are justified only on the basis of the harm or injury that would result from disclosure, not blanket exemption rules" and;
  • "Ensure that the disclosure requirements of the Access to Information Act cannot be circumvented by secrecy provisions in other federal acts, while respecting the confidentiality of national security and the privacy of personal information".
In its complaint letter, Democracy Watch requests that the Ethics Commissioner rule that Prime Minister Harper has violated the ethics Code if the government does not, very soon, introduce and attempt to move through Parliament a bill that amends the ATI Act in the above ways.

The ongoing problem of broken political promises shows the clear need for a federal “honesty-in-politics” law with high penalties for anyone in the federal government who acts dishonestly.  Every poll conducted in the past several years, including every poll conducted during the recent federal election, shows that passage of an honesty-in-politics law is Canadians’ number one priority in the area of government accountability, and a top-five priority of Canadians overall.

In its complaint letter to Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro, Democracy Watch notes that it filed a court challenge of the Ethics Commissioner last on September 29, 2005 for bias against maintaining a reasonable standard of enforcement of federal ethics rules for Cabinet minister, ministerial staff, and MPs (the Ethics Commissioner is opposing the court challenge and has filed a preliminary motion for dismissal of the court challenge).  Democracy Watch does not believe that the Commissioner is capable of making fair, impartial rulings.  As a result, Democracy Watch proposes in its letter that the Ethics Commissioner designate someone else (such as a provincial ethics commissioner) to rule on Democracy Watch’s complaint. (TO SEE details about Democracy Watch's court challenge of the federal Ethics Commissioner, and past ethics complaints, click here)

- 30 -

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
dwatch@web.net

Complaint letter to federal Ethics Commissioner Dr. Bernard Shapiro

 Supplementary letter to the federal Ethics Commissioner

 Backgrounder about this news release

To see a summary of the key measures contained in Bill C-2, go to:
 Democracy Watch's Analysis of Bill C-2

To see a summary and details about the 57 key democratic reform and accountability measures not in Bill C-2, go to:
Democracy Watch's Summary of Federal Government Accountability Loopholes

“Federal Accountability Act” (Bill C-2 -- See it and all related documents at: http://www.accountability.gc.ca)

Democracy Watch's  Government Ethics Court Challenges

Democracy Watch's Honesty in Politics Campaign

Democracy Watch's Voter Rights Campaign

Democracy Watch's Report Card on the 2006 Government Accountability Election Platforms of the five main federal political parties

Democracy Watch's December 1, 2005 news release re: the need for an honest--in-politics law and call on party leaders to offer promise guarantee
Democracy Watch's December 16, 2005 news release re: the first French debate and questions about honesty in politics
Democracy Watch's December 19, 2005 news release re: the first English debate and questions about honesty in politics
Democracy Watch's January 10, 2006 news release re: the second English debate and questions about honesty in politics

Democracy Watch homepage


Complaint letter to federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro
about Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives'
Broken Promises

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

November 22, 2006

RE: Request for investigation into actions and statements of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Treasury Board Minister John Baird, and PMO staffperson Sandra Buckler

Dear Dr. Shapiro:

Democracy Watch is filing this letter to request an investigation of what Democracy Watch believes are violations of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) by Stephen Harper in his role as MP before the federal election, and also violations of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code) by Stephen Harper in his role as Prime Minister, John Baird in his role as Treasury Board Minister, and Sandra Buckler as ministerial staff.

Democracy Watch’s position is that serious questions are raised by Stephen Harper’s statements on November 4, 2005, 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”
Democracy Watch’s position is also that serious questions are raised by Stephen Harper’s statements and actions since becoming Prime Minister, and Treasury Board John Baird’s statements and actions, and Sandra Buckler’s statements, in terms of violations of the following rules of the Public Office Holders Code:
  • “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.”
Attached is a Backgrounder that sets out the details about the 13 promises made by Stephen Harper on November 4, 2005, by the Conservative Party of Canada in its election platform, in statements since the election by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Treasury Board Minister John Baird, and PMO staffperson Sandra Buckler.

When Democracy Watch filed a complaint with you on May 25, 2006 concerning Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Treasury Board minister John Baird, and PMO staffperson Sandra Buckler violating the “honesty” rule in federal ethics rules with their actions and statements concerning Bill C-2, you replied with a letter dated June 7, 2006 refusing to investigate the situation and claiming that the legislative committee “is the proper forum for such debate.”

 Subsequently, Democracy Watch participated in all steps of the parliamentary review of Bill C-2, and now this process is very close to reaching its endpoint.  Treasury Board minister John Baird articulated the government’s final position on Bill C-2 in the House of Commons on November 20 and 21, 2006 and today, confirming that the government will not keep the 13 promises made by Stephen Harper on November 4, 2005, and in the Conservatives printed platform in the most recent federal election.

The Backgrounder details how these 13 promises have been broken as Bill C-2, the “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) does not contain the 13 promised measures.

Breaking these promises, while in some cases claiming to have kept them, as these public office holders have done, clearly violates the requirement in the ethics rules to act “with honesty”.

In addition, the Backgrounder details other promised “open government” measures that were not included in Bill C-2, the FAA.  The Conservative government has referred these measures for review by the Access, Ethics and Privacy Committee of the House of Commons.  Democracy Watch requests that you monitor the Committee’s proceedings and, if the government does not soon introduce and move through Parliament a bill containing these measures, that you rule that the Prime Minister and Treasury Board Minister have also violated the Code by failing to keep these promises.

In December 2004, a spokesperson for you stated that you would not investigate complaints filed by the public.  However, on March 3, 2006, you stated you were launching an investigation into David Emerson on your own initiative in part because of requests to do so by the public.  Democracy Watch’s position is that the statements made by representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office when the bill that created the position of Ethics Commissioner was under review by Parliament make it clear that the you are fully empowered to review complaints filed by the public.

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 complaints since September 2005.

In light of all of the above, Democracy Watch calls on you again to resign, or at the very least to delegate your powers to investigate and rule on this complaint to a provincial ethics commissioner.

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, and the Federal Court in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General) (F.C.), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 83.

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
Backgrounder
on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives’
13 Broken Promises
in Bill C-2 “The Federal Accountability Act”



FALSE CLAIMS THAT APPLY TO ALL THE BROKEN PROMISES:

“We’re only making promises we can keep . . . read our platform, and you’ll see promises that we will keep.”
     Stephen Harper (translation), during the first federal election debate
     December 15, 2005

“We’re not just saying to people ‘trust us.’  We’re saying, if you elect us, the first thing I’m going to enact is something called the Federal Accountability Act which is going to make all kinds of changes to try to make sure that government is much more honest and ethical in the future.”
     Stephen Harper, on CBC TV’s “Your Turn” segment
     January 19, 2006

 “We have committed to Canadians that accountability and ethics will be at the centre of our governing agenda.  First and foremost, accountable government means leading by example.  Our government must uphold the public trust to the highest possible standard . . .”
    Excerpt, “Message from the Prime Minister” section
    Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders
    released February 6, 2006 by new Prime Minister Stephen Harper



1. Key Background Information
In its 2005-2006 federal election platform, the Conservative Party pledged to pass a “Federal Accountability Act” containing more than 50 measures, all aimed at closing loopholes in laws, regulations and codes, and strengthening enforcement, in the areas of:

  • ethics;
  • lobbying;
  • money in politics;
  • Cabinet appointments (especially of key government accountability watchdogs);
  • government contracting (including for polling and advertising);
  • whistleblower protection;
  • access-to-information, and;
  • budgetting and auditing.


On February 6, 2006, new Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced a new Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Code -- See link to the Code on the following webpage: http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/public_office_holders/conflict_of_interest) and on that day officials from the Prime Minister’s Office claimed that the changes made to the Code were among many measures pledged in the election platform that the new Prime Minister had implemented immediately because they did not require legislation to be implemented (SEE PMO news release at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=684).

On February 22, 2006, Democracy Watch issued a news release detailing how the Prime Minister’s new Code fails to close five loopholes that the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper pledged to close before and during the federal election campaign.  That day, staff of the Prime Minister’s Officer (PMO) told the media that the five loopholes would be closed by the “Federal Accountability Act” that the Conservatives pledged during the election campaign to introduce and pass.

On April 11, 2006, the Prime Minister introduced Bill C-2, the “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) which proposes to change the Code into a law called the “Conflict of Interest Act” as well as make changes in the other areas listed above (See it and all related documents at: http://www.accountability.gc.ca).

Set out below is a summary of how the new Code and the proposed “Conflict of Interest Act” fail to close four of the five loopholes that the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper pledged to close before and during the federal election campaign (Conservative Party of Canada platform webpage).

Also set out below is a summary of how the Conservatives failed to keep their promise to include all of the measures in the Code in the proposed “Conflict of Interest Act”.

In addition, set out below is a summary of how many other measures that were promised by the Conservatives during the federal election, and since the election, were not included in the FAA.

In total, the Conservatives have broken 13 promises by failing to include measures in the Code and the FAA. 

Please note, page references for the pledges refer to pages in the Conservative Party platform, while all other page references refer to pages in the new Code.
 

2. The Conservatives’ Broken Pledges - Gaps Between Rhetoric and Reality
When compared to the Conservatives’ actions since the election, the quotations set out above and below, the Conservatives’ election platform, other statements by Stephen Harper and other Conservative representatives, and Conservative news releases, have all been proven to contain false claims, as follows:

PROMISE #1 - The proposed new Conflict of Interest Act contains all the provisions in the current ethics Code for Public Office Holders

THE PROMISE: 

“A Conservative government will: Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law.”
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, “Stand Up for Accountability” chapter, p.12

“Specifically, the Federal Accountability Act will: . . . * enshrine the provisions of the current Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders into a new Conflict of Interest Act;”
Fact Sheet on the “Federal Accountability Act” issued April 11, 2006
(Available at: http://www.faa-lfi.gc.ca/fs-fi/03fs-fi_e.asp)

“Numerous revisions have been made to the Code to strengthen it, including more stringent post-employment measures.  All changes are intended to ensure that the Code reflects our commitments to Canadians and will complement the government's broader ethics and accountability agenda.”
Excerpt, “Message from the Prime Minister” section of the
Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders
released February 6, 2006 by new Prime Minister Stephen Harper

THE REALITY:
The proposed new “Conflict of Interest Act” contained in Bill C-2, the “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) deletes the following key rules that are in the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Code):

  • honesty rule - the FAA deletes the rule that requires public office holders to “act with honesty” (subsection 3(1) of the current Code) -- this is the only general measure that requires senior politicians, their staff, and senior public servants be truthful with the public and the media;
  • uphold the highest ethical standards rule - the FAA deletes the rule that requires upholding “the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced” (subsection 3(1) of the current Code;
  • conflicts of interest rule - the FAA deletes the rule that requires arranging private affairs in a manner that “will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising” and requires resolving all conflicts of interest “in favour of the public interest” (subsection 3(5) of current Code);
  • ban on use of government property rule - the FAA deletes the rule that prohibits the use of government property for anything other than officially approved activities (subsection 3(9) of current Code), and;
  • ban on owing lobbyists rule - the FAA deletes the rule that requires public office holders to “take care to avoid being placed or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization that might profit from special consideration on the part of the public office holder” (subsection 22(1) of the current Code).
As is clear from the above, Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives have broken their promise and made false statements about including all of the measures in the Code into the “Conflict of Interest Act”.
 

FALSE CLAIMS THAT APPLY TO BROKEN PROMISES #2 TO 4:

“If there are MPs in this room who want to use public office for their own benefit, or if there are Hill staffers who dream of making it rich by trying to lobby a future Conservative government -- if that’s true of any of you, then you better make other plans or leave.”
Stephen Harper, introducing the “Federal Accountability Act” pledge,
November 4, 2005

“Numerous revisions have been made to the Code to strengthen it, including more stringent post-employment measures.  All changes are intended to ensure that the Code reflects our commitments to Canadians and will complement the government's broader ethics and accountability agenda.”
Excerpt, “Message from the Prime Minister” section of the
Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders
released February 6, 2006 by new Prime Minister Stephen Harper

PROMISE #2 - Apply all measures of the Code to all ministers’ staff and advisers

THE PROMISE:

"A Conservative government will: Make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the Ethics Code." (Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, “Stand Up for Accountability” chapter, p.12)

THE REALITY: Clause 4(3)(b) of the Code states that only the Principles set out in Part I of the Codeapply to part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper actually increased the loophole by adding part (iii) as follows:

“4.(3)(b) Public office holders who are:
(i) persons other than public servants who work on average fewer than fifteen hours a week on
behalf of a minister, including persons working on a contractual or voluntary basis;

(ii) part-time Governor in Council appointees who are not in receipt of an annual salary or benefits from the appointment; or

(iii) part-time ministerial appointees who are designated by the appropriate minister as a public office holder

are subject only to the Principles set out in Part I and such other compliance measures as may be determined by the head of the organization in question, for whose application that individual is responsible.”


In addition, PMO staff member Sandra Buckler was dishonest when she told media (in response to Democracy Watch's February 22, 2006 news release about this and other loopholes left in the Code ) that all of the loopholes would be closed by the "Federal Accountability Act" (FAA).

In fact, in the "Conflict of Interest Act" part of the FAA, subsection 2(1) defines "public office holders as follows:

"'public office holder' means
(a) a minister of the Crown, a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary;
(b) a member of ministerial staff;
(c) a ministerial adviser;
(d) a Governor in Council appointee, other than the following persons, namely,
(i) a lieutenant governor,
(ii) officers and staff of the Senate, House of Commons and Library of Parliament,
(iii) a person appointed or employed under the Public Service Employment Act who is a head of mission within the meaning of subsection 13(1) of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act,
(iv) a judge who receives a salary under the Judges Act,
(v) a military judge within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the National Defence Act, and
(vi) an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not including the Commissioner; and
(e) a full-time ministerial appointee designated by the appropriate minister of the Crown as a public office holder."
and defines "reporting public office holder" as follows:
"'reporting public office holder" means a public office holder who is
(a) a minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary;
(b) a member of ministerial staff who works on average 15 hours or more a week;
(c) a ministerial adviser;
(d) a Governor in Council appointee who exercises his or her official duties and functions on a part-time basis but receives an annual salary and benefits;
(e) a Governor in Council appointee who exercises his or her official duties and functions on a full-time basis; or
(f) a full-time ministerial appointee designated by the appropriate minister of the Crown as a reporting public office holder."
Only "reporting public office holders" have to comply with sections 15, 17, 22 to 29, 35, 36, 37, and 39 to 42 of the proposed Conflict of Interest Act, all of which contain key rules (especially rules 35, 36 and 37 on post-employment activities).

In addition, section 38 of the proposed "Conflict of Interest Act" (which is contained in Bill C-2 "The Federal Accountability Act" (FAA)) allows a minister to exempt any ministerial staffer from the key post-employment rules 35 to 37, and attempts to prohibit anyone from challenging the exemption in court.

As is clear from the above, Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives have broken their promise to "Make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the Ethics Code" because part-time public office holders are only subject to parts of the Code and are not subject to any more parts of the Code than they were in the past, and other ministerial staffers can be exempted from some rules of the Code .
 

PROMISE #3 - Ban ministers, staff and top bureaucrats from lobbying for 5 years

THE PROMISES:
"A Conservative government will: Extend to five years the period during which former ministers, ministerial staffers, and senior public servants cannot lobby government."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.8 

"We're going to make sure that in future people can't leave minister's offices, former ministers, former senior civil servants will not be able to lobby our government for five years after they leave office."
Stephen Harper, during the 2nd English debate, January 9, 2006

"Stephen Harper has laid the bar very high with this -- the five-year ban on lobbying is significant and it's meaningful . . . What we're saying very clearly is, the farthest reaching lobbying reform in Canadian history is that if you work in government, if you work in the executive level of government, and you have access to a lot of information, you have access to inside sources and contact, you can't translate that into a lucrative career for yourself."
Treasury Board Minister John Baird, on CTV's "Question Period" April 9, 2006

THE REALITY:
In Part III of the Code , entitled "Post-Employment Compliance Measures", new subsection 29(1) states that only ministerial staff "designated" by the minister under section 24 of the Code are subject to the five-year ban on being a lobbyist, as follows:
"29. (1) In addition to the limitations set out in section 28, former ministers, senior public servants and ministerial staff designated under section 24 may not act as consultant lobbyists, or accept employment as in-house lobbyists, for a period of five years after leaving public office."

Section 24 of the Code is also new and states:

"'Public office holder' refers to the same positions subject to Part II, as set out in section 4, with the exception that ministerial staff and other public office holders as defined at paragraph (b) of the definition of "public office holder" under subsection 4(1) must be designated by their minister for this Part to apply."
And a public office holder under paragraph 4(1)(b) is "a person, other than a public servant, who works on behalf of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state".

As a result of these measures, the promise to ban all ministerial staff from becoming lobbyists for five years after they leave office has been broken. Only "designated" staff will be banned from becoming lobbyists for five years, and there are no effective measures requiring ministers to designate staff.

In addition, as detailed in the "Promise #2" above, part-time and non-remunerated ministerial staff are not covered by the ban, whether or not they are designated by the minister, because they are not covered by Part III of the Code.

The Prime Minister's Office was also dishonest about the failure to keep this commitment in the February 6, 2006 news release it issued. The "Backgrounder" of the release, under the heading "Reinforcing Government Accountability", made the false claim that the revisions to the Code: "include: a five-year ban on former ministers, ministerial staff and senior public servants from acting as lobbyists to the Government of Canada, a ban which cannot be waived or reduced by the Ethics Commissioner." (SEE release at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=684)

In addition, PMO staff member Sandra Buckler was dishonest when she told media (in response to Democracy Watch's February 22, 2006 news release about this and other loopholes left in the Code) that all of the loopholes would be closed by the "Federal Accountability Act" (FAA).

In fact, as detailed under the "Promise #2" section above, only "reporting public office holders" have to comply with sections 35, 36 and 37 of the proposed Conflict of Interest Act (which is contained in Bill C-2, the FAA), the sections that contain the key rules on post-employment lobbying activities. As well, section 38 of the Conflict of Interest Act allows ministers to exempt any ministerial staffperson from the sections 35 to 37, and attempts to prohibit anyone from challenging the exemption decision in court.

Further, the current Lobbyist Registration Act (which proposed to become the "Lobbying Act" under the FAA) and the amendments made to this Act in the FAA, require in-house lobbyists at for-profit corporations to register as lobbyists only if they spend 20% or more of their time lobbying. As a result, any minister, ministerial staffer, or senior public servant will still be allowed, even after the FAA becomes law, to work for a corporation and lobby less than 20% of their time.

Proposed new subsection 10.11(2) of the Lobbying Act (as added by section 75 of the FAA) also exempts "employment exchange program" participants from the the five-year ban on senior public office holders becoming lobbyists -- creating a huge loophole in the five-year ban that will definitely be exploited.

Also, proposed new subsection 10(3) of the Lobbying Act (as added by section 75 of the FAA) gives the Commissioner of Lobbyists the power to exempt specific types of senior public office holders from the five-year ban on lobbying.

Finally, the FAA does not contain any ban MPs, senators and their staff from becoming lobbyists after they leave their position.

As is clear from the above, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a false claim in November 2005 when he claimed that he would ensure that all Parliament Hill staffers would not be able to become "rich by trying to lobby a future Conservative government" and Harper and the Conservatives also made false claims in their election promises concerning the five-year ban on lobbying, and in their statements since the election concerning breaking those election promises.
 

PROMISE #4 - Prohibit ministers from handling files connected to their business interests

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: Close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.12

THE REALITY:
Subsections 3(4) and 3(5) of the current Code state:

"Private Interests
(4) Public office holders shall not have private interests, other than those permitted pursuant to this Code , that would be affected particularly or significantly by government actions in which they participate.

"Public Interest
(5) On appointment to office, and thereafter, public office holders shall arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising but if such a conflict does arise between the private interests of a public office holder and the official duties and responsibilities of that public office holder, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the public interest."

When he became Prime Minister in December 2003, Paul Martin added a definition of "private interest" to subsection 4(1) of the Code, as follows:
"'Private interest' does not include an interest in a matter
(a) that is of general application;
(b) that affects a person as one of a broad class of the public; or
(c) that concerns the remuneration or benefits of a public office holder."
This definition creates a huge loophole that allows ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests, as long as the matter is of general application (as almost everything any minister votes on is) or affects the minister as one of a broad class of the public (also as almost everything any minister votes on does).

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not removed this definition of "private interest" from the new Code, and so the loophole has not been closed.

In addition, PMO staff member Sandra Buckler was dishonest when she told media (in response to Democracy Watch's February 22, 2006 news release about this and other loopholes left in the Code) that all of the loopholes would be closed by the "Federal Accountability Act".

In fact, section 2 of the proposed "Federal Accountability Act" (Bill C-2) amends the Code and turns it into a law that, if passed, will be called the "Conflict of Interest Act". Proposed sections 4 and 5 of the "Conflict of Interest Act" reads as follows:

"Conflict of interest
4. For the purposes of this Act, a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person's private interests."
Proposed subsection 2(1) of the "Conflict of Interest Act" contains the following, largely unchanged, definition of "private interest":
"'private interest' does not include an interest in a matter
(a) that is of general application;
(b) that affects a person as one of a broad class of the public; or
(c) that concerns the remuneration or benefits received by virtue of being a public office holder."
As is clear from the above, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have broken the election promise to remove this definition of "private interest" from the proposed "Conflict of Interest Act", and so the loophole will remain open and ministers will not only be allowed "to vote on matters connected with their business interests" they will also be allowed to be involved in, and responsible for, the entire policy-making process concerning matters connected with their business interests.

Top

Top of Backgrounder

PROMISE #5 - Allow the public to file complaints with the Ethics Commissioner

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: Allow members of the public - not just politicians - to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.12

THE REALITY:
Subsection 5(4) of the new Code is new and states:

"In fulfilling the functions under 72.07(a) and (b) of the Parliament of Canada Act , and subject to 72.08 of that Act, the Ethics Commissioner shall consider information from the public that is brought to his attention by a member of Parliament suggesting that a public office holder has not complied with this Code , and may take such action as the Ethics Commissioner deems appropriate in the circumstances."
Given that, under this new measure, members of Parliament are the only people who are allowed to file information with the Ethics Commissioner, and given that if the information originally came from a member of the public the Ethics Commissioner is not required to investigate, it is clear that the promise to allow members of the public, not just politicians, to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner has been broken.

In addition, PMO staff member Sandra Buckler was dishonest when she told media (in response to Democracy Watch's February 22, 2006 news release about this and other loopholes left in the Code) that all of the loopholes would be closed by the "Federal Accountability Act" (FAA).

In fact, subsections 44(4) to (8) of the proposed Conflict of Interest Act (which is contained in Bill C-2, the FAA) match the measure in the new Code and only allow politicians to file complaints, and put up barriers to the public submitting information to a politician with the request that it be filed as a complaint.

As is clear from the above, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have broken the election promise to allow all members of the public to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner.
 

PROMISE #6 - The Ethics Commissioner will have the power to fine violators

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: Give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.12

THE REALITY:
There is no measure in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's new Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Code) that gives the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators of the Code . There is also no measure in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (MPs Code) that allows the Ethics Commissioner to fine violators, and the Conservatives have not proposed changing the MPs Code(which is party of the rules of the House of Commons).

In addition, PMO staff member Sandra Buckler was dishonest when she told media (in response to Democracy Watch's February 22, 2006 news release about this and other loopholes left in the Code ) that all of the loopholes would be closed by the "Federal Accountability Act" (FAA).

In fact, while the proposed "Conflict of Interest Act" (which incorporates most of the measures in the Code and is contained in Bill C-2, the FAA) does give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators, the maximum fine is only $500 and only violators of six (6) sections of the Conflict of Interest Act can be fined. In addition, subsection 53(3) of the Conflict of Interest Act sets out criteria for determining penalties that are too generous and thereby greatly reduce the likelihood that any public office holder will ever be penalized.

Also in fact, nothing in the FAA gives the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators of the MPs Code.
The FAA also proposes to eliminate the Senate Ethics Officer and to have one Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for both the Senate and the House of Commons. Nothing in the FAA gives the proposed new Commissioner the power to fine violators of the Senate ethics rules.

As is clear from the above, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have broken their promise to give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators of the rules the Ethics Commissioner enforces.
 

PROMISE #7 - Ministers and senior officials will have to record their contacts with lobbyists

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: Require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.8

THE REALITY:
The Federal Accountability Act (FAA) does not require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists.

As a result, Prime Minister Stephen Harper clearly released a document in November 2005 that contained a false statement, and the Conservatives have clearly broken their election promise.
 

PROMISE #8 - An independent Parliamentary Budget Office will be created

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: Create an independent Parliamentary Budget Office."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.11

THE REALITY:
While proposed new subsection 79.1(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act (as added by section 119 of the FAA) creates the Parliamentary Budget Office, the subsection also give Cabinet the power to dismiss the Parliamentary Budget Officer without any cause for doing so.

As a result, the Officer will lack a key safeguard of independence, the right to remain on the job unless there is cause for dismissal.

As well, the Conservatives promised to "Require government departments and agencies . . . to provide accurate, timely information to the Parliamentary Budget Office to ensure it has the information it needs to provide accurate analyses to Parliament" but proposed new clause 79.3(2)(b) and of the Parliament of Canada Act (as added by section 119 of the FAA) allows government officials to refuse to disclose up-to-date financial data by labelling the data a "Cabinet confidence."

As well, the Conservatives' failure to include in the FAA promised changes to the federal Access to Information Act means that many other exemptions to disclosure could be abused by government officials in ways that deny the Parliamentary Budget Office the information it needs to provide accurate analyses to Parliament.
 

PROMISE #9 - All government public opinion research will be published within six months of completion

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: Ensure that all government public opinion research is automatically published within six months of the completion of the project."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.10

THE REALITY:
Proposed new section 15.1 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act (as added by section 180 of the FAA) only requires some government institutions to file a copy of research conducted by an outside company.

As a result, public opinion research conducted by outside companies for many government institutions will remain secret, as will public opinion research conducted in-house by all government institutions.

Top

Top of Backgrounder

PROMISE #10 - All whistleblowers reporting government wrongdoing will be protected

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: - Ensure that all Canadians who report government wrongdoing are protected, not just public servants - Remove the government's ability to exempt Crown corporations and other bodies from the Act [the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act]."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.11

THE REALITY:
The definition of "public sector" in section 2 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA - which was passed by Parliament last November but has not been proclaimed into law by Cabinet, and will not be until the FAA passes) does not include all politicians' offices, all Crown corporations, all Officers of Parliament, all foundations, and all organizations that spend taxpayers' money or perform public functions.

As well, the definition of "reprisal" in section 2 of the PSDPA does not include reprisals against non-public servants, and proposed new section 19 of the PSDPA (as changed by section 201 of the FAA) does not prohibit reprisals against any whistleblower, only against whistleblowers who are public servants.

In addition, proposed new subsection 42.1(3) of the PSDPA (as added by section 215 of the FAA) contradicts section 19 of the PSDPA by exempting public sector employers from the prohibition of reprisals against employee.
 

PROMISE #11 - Require prompt disclosure of information revealed by whistleblowers

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: Require the prompt public disclosure of information revealed by whistleblowers, except where national security or the security of individuals is affected."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.11

THE REALITY:
Section 55 of the PSDPA (as changed by section 222 of the FAA) and section 57 of the PSDPA (as changed by section 224 of the FAA) and sections 58 and 58.1 of the PSDPA (as changed by section 225 of the FAA) prohibit (under the federal Access to Information Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and the Privacy Act) the disclosure of information about wrongdoing revealed by whistleblowers.
 

PROMISE #12 - Establish a Public Appointments Commission

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: "Establish a Public Appointments Commission to set merit-based requirements for appointments to government boards, commissions and agencies, to ensure that competitions for posts are widely publicized and fairly conducted."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.9

THE REALITY:
Section 1.1 of the Salaries Act (as added by section 228 of the FAA) does not require Cabinet to establish a Public Appointments Commission (it only allows Cabinet to create the Commission) and it puts the Commission entirely under the control of Cabinet (which means the Commission would lack the independence to do anything effective to end patronage and cronyism (which is the reason the Conservatives claim the Commission is being created)).

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper nominated Gwyn Morgan as the chairperson of the Commission (making at the time the very dubious claim that "There is no one better qualified" for the position), and the federal Cabinet passed Orders-in-Council to set the terms of reference of the Commission, when the parliamentary committee that reviewed the nomination rejected Mr. Morgan as the nominee the Prime Minister made the false claim that "We won't be able to clean up the [appointment] process in this minority Parliament."

In fact, the FAA can be amended to require the creation of the Commission, and to set out strict, merit-based, non-partisan rules for appointments and for the Commission's operations, and to give it the independence from Cabinet that it will need to end patronage and cronyism (alternately, the proposed new Public Sector Integrity Commissioner could be empowered to fulfill the role proposed for the Public Appointments Commission).

As is clear from the above, the Prime Minister is breaking the Conservatives' promise to establish a Public Appointments Commission.
 

PROMISE #13 - Appoint a Procurement Auditor

THE PROMISE:
"A Conservative government will: "Appoint a Procurement Auditor to ensure that all procurements are fair and transparent, and to address complaints from vendors."
Conservative Party 2006 federal election platform, "Stand Up for Accountability" chapter, p.10

THE REALITY:
Proposed new subsections 22.1(1) and (3) of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (DPWGSA -- as added by section 309 of the FAA) do not require Cabinet to appoint a Procurement Auditor (it only allows Cabinet to create the Auditor), does not give the Auditor independence from Cabinet nor job security, and does not give the Procurement Auditor the power to audit the procurement practices of all government institutions, it only gives the Auditor the power to audit departments.

In addition, subsections 22.1(3), 22.2(3), 22.3(1) and 23.1(c) of the DPWGSA (as added by sections 309 and 310 of the FAA) only give the Procurement Auditor the power to make non-binding recommendations (which the Cabinet can restrict by regulation), not orders.

Finally, section 317 of the FAA gives the Cabinet the power not to implement sections 309 and 310 of the FAA (which establish the Procurement Auditor position).
 

3. Potential Future Broken "Open Government" Promises 

In addition to the above 13 broken promises, the Conservatives failed to include the following promised open-government measures in the Federal Accountability Act.

However, the Conservatives have initiated a parliamentary committee review of the federal Access to Information Act (ATI Act) and so they may still keep these promises. 

The Conservatives promised to change the ATI Act in the following ways:

  • "Implement the Information Commissioner's recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act";
  • "Give the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of information";
  • expand the ATI Act to all "foundations, and organizations that spend taxpayers' money or perform public functions";
  • "Subject the exclusion of Cabinet confidences to review by the Information Commissioner";
  • "Oblige public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions";
  • "Provide a general public interest override for all exemptions, so that the public interest is put before the secrecy of the government";
  • "Ensure that all exemptions from the disclosure of government information are justified only on the basis of the harm or injury that would result from disclosure, not blanket exemption rules" and;
  • "Ensure that the disclosure requirements of the Access to Information Act cannot be circumvented by secrecy provisions in other federal acts, while respecting the confidentiality of national security and the privacy of personal information".
Democracy Watch's position is that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should also be found to have violated the requirements of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Code) if the Conservative government does not, very soon, introduce and move through Parliament a bill amending the ATI Act in the above ways.

Of course, as with the above 13 broken promises, if the Conservative government introduces measures to keep the open government promises and the opposition parties (which control a majority of seats in Parliament) reject the government's proposed measures, the Prime Minister and the Conservatives should not be found guilty of breaking their promises and violating the Code as the breaking of the promises would not result from their actions.

 
Supplementary letter to federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro
about Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives'
Broken Promises

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

December 18, 2006

RE: Additional information concerning November 22, 2006 letter requesting investigation into actions and statements of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Treasury Board Minister John Baird, and PMO staffperson Sandra Buckler

Dear Dr. Shapiro:

Democracy Watch is filing this letter as a supplement to the request it submitted to you on November 22, 2006 for an investigation of what Democracy Watch believes are violations of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) by Stephen Harper, and also violations of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code) by Stephen Harper in his role as Prime Minister, John Baird in his role as Treasury Board Minister, and Sandra Buckler as ministerial staff.

Since sending the request to you, Democracy Watch has determined that two other promised measures were not included in Bill C-2 (the so-called “Federal Accountability Act”), as follows:

  • the promise to “introduce new Criminal Code penalties for fraud involving the misuse of taxpayers’ money", and;
  • the promise to “Establish monetary rewards for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing or save taxpayer dollars” (In fact, the FAA did contain a $2,000 maximum reward, but this measure was cut from the bill during the parliamentary review process with support from the Conservatives).
In addition, Treasury Board minister John Baird on Friday, December 8th stated publicly that Prime Minister Stephen Harper had delivered with the passage of Bill C-2 a “Christmas gift” to Canadians of “clean government” and on December 12th the Prime Minister stated in a news release that “accountability in government is now the law” and his government released a misleading summary of Bill C-2 (Please see attached news release and summary of Bill C-2 and December 9th newspaper article [NOTE: article is not available online and so cannot be displayed -- it is an Ottawa Citizen article containing the quotation from Minister Baird set out above]).

When introducing the Act proposal in November 2005, Mr. Harper stated that he would “begin the process of fixing the system by legislating and enforcing the Federal Accountability Act -- a specific, detailed and credible plan to clean up government.”

Given that Bill C-2 only contained 29 of the 52 measures promised by Mr. Harper and the Conservatives in their election platform, it is clearly impossible, by the Conservatives own standard, that Bill C-2 will produce a clean, accountable federal government.  As a result, the recent statements and claims about Bill C-2 by the Prime Minister and Minister Baird are demonstably false, and are therefore a further violation of the ethics rules requiring them to act “with honesty”.

We look forward to your ruling on Democracy Watch’s November 22nd complaint.

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

Original to follow by mail
Top

Top of Backgrounder

Democracy Watch homepage