Thursday, February 27, 2003

OTTAWA - Democracy Watch today revealed Paul Martin’s proposals from 1992 for an effective government ethics enforcement process that would ensure ministers who own large companies or other large, private interests are not helping those interests.  Martin’s past proposals directly contradict how he is now dealing with conflict of interest allegations about his ownership of CSL Group Inc.  Democracy Watch called for an independent public inquiry into Martin’s situation, and for key loopholes to be closed in the current ethics system to meet the Supreme Court of Canada’s standard, and to ensure honest, ethical government in the future.

In April 1992, Martin testified before the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct for MPs and Senators.  In his testimony, Martin called for the creation of "the position of ethics commissioner" who "should report to Parliament" and "have the ability to investigate" in order: "to provide the public with the assurance that individual transactions which might be in conflict have been handled in a fair and legitimate manner."  Martin also set out the following scenario about a fictional company called “Oceanex” he was imagining he owned:

"To go back to the Oceanex [the company] example that I gave, if I had been in cabinet - heaven forbid - and I'm not allowed to be involved in the management of the company, I don't know what is going on, and suddenly I'm asked a question about something, how in heaven's name will the public be satisfied that this was all done in a fair and legitimate way if an independent officer of Parliament is not able to ascertain the facts."

Wilson has no independence nor investigative powers in his position as advisor under the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code).  As a result, he is completely ineffective in actually investigating, let alone clearing, any Cabinet minister’s conflicts of interest.  In fact, Wilson is a frontman who rubberstamps almost everything Liberals do as ethical.

"No one should believe the lapdog Ethics Counsellor when he says Paul Martin is innocent or when he sets out ethical standards," said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. "Martin is revealing a deeply corrupt attitude toward ethics by asking the Liberals’ lapdog to clear him of conflicts of interest."

As with all past situations dealt with by the Ethics Counsellor, Democracy Watch believes Parliament must set up an independent inquiry to determine whether Martin has violated the Public Office Holders Code.

No matter what Martin or Wilson claims about the legality of the supposedly "blind" management agreement for Martin’s CSL Group and the updates Martin has received about CSL Group under the agreement arrangement, there remain serious questions about whether Martin violated the Code given that the Code requires public office holders:

• under Part I, subsection 3(5) to "arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising";
• under Part I, subsection 3(2) "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";
• under Part II, subsection 23(1), to "take care to avoid being placed or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization, or the representative of a person or organization, that might profit from special consideration on the part of the office holder"; and
• 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 enhanced."

"The ethics rules effectively require ministers to sell large, wide-ranging companies such as Martin owns, but the lapdog Ethics Counsellor has of course interpreted the rules to allow ministers to have private interests that conflict with their legal duty to uphold the public interest," said Conacher.

Trying to dodge serious questions about the ethics of his situation, Martin has complained that high ethical standards would discourage "entrepreneurs who want to make a contribution to public life."  This is the same old elitist argument that has been put forward by politicians as they have resisted seven attempts since 1987 to pass ethics rules for all MPs and senators, and it is the same argument that some MPs and senators are now making to resist the proposed new ethics rules and ethics enforcement system now before Parliament.

"Martin is protectinghis own self-interest by claiming that strong, independently enforced ethics rules will discourage people like him from becoming politicians, and revealing how little regard he has for upholding the public interest," said Conacher.  "Good people who want to contribute to public life by protecting the public interest have nothing to fear from strong, effectivelyenforced ethics rules."

In contrast to Martin’s and others’ corrupt attitudes, the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1996 case about a public servant accused of an ethical breach set out a principled ethics standard, as follows: ". . . given the heavy trust and responsibility taken on by the holding of a public office or employ, it is appropriate that government officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct which, for an ordinary person, would be quite severe."

Democracy Watch coordinates the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition which is pushing to close key gaps in the proposed new ethics rules for all politicians, and proposed new independent, effective ethics watchdog, before they are passed by Parliament.  Democracy Watch is also challenging in court what it believes is bias and failure to uphold legal duties by the Ethics Counsellor.

"The federal government will never govern with integrity until the loopholes in the current ethics rules are closed, the rules apply to all MPs, senators and public servants, and a fully independent, fully empowered ethics watchdog exists to investigate and publicly rule on alleged violations of all ethics rules," said Conacher.