Monday, January 6, 2003

OTTAWA - Democracy Watch today called for an independent, effective investigation of the conversations and agreements betweeen Finance Minister John Manley, Rod Bryden of the Ottawa Senators, and John Hunkin, CEO of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).

According to media reports, Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson is refusing to investigate but has already decided that Manley broke no ethics rules. In failing to fulfil his legal duty to investigate, Wilson has revealed yet again that he has no independence in his position as advisor under the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code). Even if he did investigate, Wilson has none of the necessary investigative powers in that position.

Wilson does have strong investigative powers in his other position as enforcer of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, but because of loopholes in the federal lobbying law Rod Bryden has not had to register as a lobbyist even though he lobbied Manley. As a result, the lobbyist ethics rules do not apply to Bryden.

"No one should believe the Ethics Counsellor when he says John Manley is innocent," said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. "The Ethics Counsellor has not investigated Manley's actions, he has no independence or investigative powers, and so is once again acting as a frontman for the Prime Minister giving his stamp of approval to the highly questionable behaviour of a Liberal Cabinet minister. An independent investigation is needed into Manley's actions."

Given the lack of effective action possible by the Ethics Counsellor, Democracy Watch believes Parliament should set up an independent inquiry as the Public Office Holders Code contains rules that specifically apply to the situation, as follows:

• under Part I, sub-section 3(7), to "not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person." (QUESTION 1: Did Manley give Bryden preferential treatment, or does he call the bank CEO for every constituent who comes to him with a bank financing problem?);
• under Part II, subsection 23(3), to "not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to family members or friends or to organizations in which they, family members or friends, have an interest." (QUESTION 2: Is Bryden, as reported in the media, a friend of Manley's, and if so, did Manley give Bryden preferential treatment?)
• 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." (QUESTION 3: Was Manley under an obligation to Bryden (or the appearance of an obligation), given his acceptance of Bryden's invitation to sit in Bryden's private box at an Ottawa Senators playoff game in the past?)

In addition, the Public Office Holders Code requires ministers to "to uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and maintained" and "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." Manley's actions raise serious questions about violations of all the rules set out above.

Several other questions remain about the situation, and until these questions are answered it cannot be determined whether Manley also possibly violated other laws, including the Criminal Code:

1. Did Rod Bryden do anything for John Manley (or has he promised to do anything) in return for Manley making the call to Hunkin? (NOTE: if so, it would be a violation of the Criminal Code)
2. Is Rod Bryden, or any corporation he is connected to, one of Manley's party leadership campaign donors whose donation was returned by Manley after consultation with the Ethics Counsellor last June because the donation caused a conflict of interest? (NOTE: the Ethics Counsellor has refused to disclose the identity of the donors whose donations were returned -- Democracy Watch filed a complaint on October 17, 2002 with the Ethics Counsellor about his failure to disclose the donors' identities)
3. Is Rod Bryden, or any corporation he is connected to, one of donors to the $96,000 lump sum donation made by Manley's riding association to Manley's party leadership campaign before June 2002? (NOTE: Liberal leadership race rules do not yet require disclosure of the identity of the source of donations routed through riding associations)
4. Will Rod Bryden, or any corporation he is connected to, be on the list of donors to be revealed by Manley on January 10, 2003 as part of the regular, every 60 days disclosure of donors to Liberal Party leadership candidate campaigns, and if so, on what date was Bryden's donation made?
5. Will Rod Bryden, or any corporation he is connected to, be on the list of donors to Manley's leadership campaign blind trust, to be revealed by Manley on October 15, 2003 as part of the final disclosure of donors to Liberal Party leadership candidate campaigns, and if so, on what date was Bryden's donation made to the blind trust?
6. Has Rod Bryden, or any corporation he is connected to, made a deposit to any other bank account held directly or indirectly by Manley? (NOTE: the only legal requirement requiring ministers to disclose the type, value and source of any gifts received is in the Public Office Holders Code, but again the Code is enforced by the toothless lapdog Ethics Counsellor).

The federal Liberals have proposed to eliminate the Ethics Counsellor position and replace him with an independent Ethics Commissioner with full investigative powers. Given the lack of an independent, effective investigation of the Manley situation and other past situations involving Liberal Cabinet ministers, the new Ethics Commissioner must also be given the power to investigate past situations as well as future allegations.

"The federal government will never govern with integrity until the holes in the current system are filled," said Conacher. "We need a strong ethics law for all MPs and Senators, need to change the ministers and lobbyists and public servants codes into laws, and need a new, fully independent, fully empowered Ethics Commission to investigate and publicly rule on alleged violations of all ethics rules."

Democracy Watch currently has two applications in court challenging what it believes is bias and failure to uphold legal duties by the Ethics Counsellor in the past.