Tuesday, January 23, 2007

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch filed an open complaint letter with federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro concerning the switching of political parties by MP Wajid Khan.  The letter raises questions about whether federal ethics rules for MPs were violated by Khan (To see the complaint letter, click here).

“As many past party-switching politicians have done, Wajid Khan misled voters in his riding during the last election and and gave highly questionable reasons for switching, and he has also not kept his promise to make his report to Prime Minister Harper public,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch, “Ethics rules for MPs require that they be honest and uphold the highest standards to enhance the public’s confidence in their integrity, and Wajid Khan’s recent actions do not meet this test.”

Democracy Watch’s complaint calls for an investigation of whether Mr. Khan’s actions violate the following parts of rule 2 in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (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;”

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

January 23, 2007

RE: Request for investigation into actions of MP Wajid Khan

Dear Dr. 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 Wajid Khan.

Democracy Watch’s position is that serious questions about whether the MPs Code has been violated are raised by Wajid Khan actions of:

• running as a Liberal in the last election, and then switching to the Conservative Party, at least in part to retain the position of special advisor to the Prime Minister;
• giving reasons for the switch (ie. the Liberal Party has changed direction on key policies) that are not backed by any clear evidence, and;
• promising to release his report when appointed special advisor to the Prime Minister, and not yet releasing the report.

• “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”

• the title of the part of the MPs Code that contains section 2 is “Principles” not “Preamble”;
• the dictionary definition of the word “principle” is “law” or “rules of conduct” or “code of conduct”;
• section 2 begins with the words “Members are expected” and then contains rules that members are clearly expected to comply with;
• under subsection 72.05(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, you as Ethics Commissioner are designated as the only administrator/enforcer of the MPs Code, and as a result you are the only one who can enforce the rules in section 2 of the MPs Code, and;
• under subsection 72.05(3) of the Parliament of Canada Act, you as Ethics Commissioner are under the “general direction” of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and that Committee has not directed you not to enforce the rules contained in section 2 of the MPs Code.

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 (September 29, 2005 news release about court application).

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 January 2007.  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;
• the decision not to initiate an investigation into the complaint filed against Liberal Cabinet minister Tony Valeri;
• the ruling in the complaint against Cabinet Minister David Emerson and Prime Minister Stephen Harper (To see the Ethics Commissioner's report on David Emerson, click here);
• the ruling in the complaint against Liberal Cabinet Minister Belinda Stronach and former Prime Minister Paul Martin;
• the ruling in the complaint against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Treasury Board Minister John Baird and PMO staffperson Sandra Buckler concerning breaking promises and making misleading statements about the so-called “Federal Accountability Act” (Bill C-2) -- To see the Ethics Commissioner's ruling, click here, and;
• the ruling in the complaint against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty concerning breaking the promise not to tax income trusts (To see the Ethics Commissioner's ruling, click here).

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).

In the circumstances, we ask you to set an example of public accountability and address this complaint promptly and effectively with a response no later than 30 days of the date of this letter.

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

1. Office of the federal Ethics Commissioner - http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec
Annual Report of the Ethics Commissioner on Activities in Relation to Public Office Holders for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005 -
http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/media/annual_reports/reports/AR_POH_EN_web.pdf

Annual Report of the Ethics Commissioner on Activities in Relation to Members of the House of Commons for the Fiscal Year ending March 31, 2005 - http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/media/annual_reports/reports/AR_MP_EN_web.pdf

Annual Report on MPs Sponsored Travel for Fiscal Year ending March 31, 2005 -
http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/media/annual_reports/reports/report_2004_en.pdf
 

2. Laws and Codes
Parliament of Canada Act - http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-4/C-4_4/C-4_cover-e.html

Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code) -
http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/public_office_holders/conflict_of_interest

Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) -  http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/standingorders/appa2-e.htm
 

3. Transcripts of Parliamentary Committee Hearings at which the Ethics Commissioner and/or his staff have testified (in chronological order):
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on April 26, 2004 -  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/37/3/haff/meetings/evidence/HAFFEV16-E.HTM

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on October 14, 2004 -  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/38/1/proc/meetings/evidence/PROCEV02-E.HTM

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on December 8, 2004 -  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/38/1/ethi/meetings/evidence/ETHIEV07-E.HTM

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on February 10, 2005 -  http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/38/1/ethi/meetings/evidence/ETHIEV10-E.HTM

Subcommittee on the Disclosure Statement under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on April 14, 2005 -  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=112190

Subcommittee on the Disclosure Statement under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on April 21, 2005 -   http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=111744

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on May 10, 2005 -  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=116790

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on June 2, 2005 -  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=119710

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on June 9, 2005 -  http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=120510
 

4. Radio Interviews of the Ethics Commisioner
On September 11, 2004 on CBC Radio’s show “The House” - http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/audio.html (To listen to the piece, click on the "September 11" link under the heading "2004" on the page the link takes you to -- the piece starts 27 minutes, 50 seconds into the show, and ends 35 minutes, 12 seconds into the show)

On May 3, 2005, the Ethics Commissioner was interviewed on CBC Radio’s “The Current” show -  http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2005/200505/20050503.html (Part 2 of the show)
 

5. Judy Sgro Situation
Ethics Commissioner's June 21, 2005 ruling on the Sgro situation: http://www.parl.gc.ca/sites/ethicscommission/en/media/inquiry_reports/reports/ReportS_EN3_web.pdf

Democracy Watch's news release about the ruling on the Sgro situation - Ethics Commissioner Ruling on Sgro Affair Biased, Flawed -- Avoids Many Key Issues (June 21, 2005)

Democracy Watch's news release about the Ethics Commissioner's investigation of the Sgro situation - Ethics Commissioner Process Biased, Flawed -- Impartial Inquiry Needed into Sgro Affair (May 10, 2005)
 

6. Gurmant Grewal Situation
Ethics Commissioner's June 22, 2005 ruling on the Grewal situation - http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec-bce/site/pages/ReportG_EN1_web.pdf

Democracy Watch's news release about the Grewal ruling -
Ethics Commissioner Again Ignores Rules in Grewal Ruling, Testifies at Illegal House Committee Hearing (June 23, 2005)
 

7. Democracy Watch's Past News Releases and Op-Eds about the Ethics Commissioner
Gaps in Ethics Enforcement Must Be Closed to Ensure Honest, Ethical Government (February 6, 2003)

Ethically Challenged Martin an Example of Systemic Problem with Parliamentarians (February 28, 2003)

Senators, MPs Trying to Protect Themselves from Ethics Accountability (April 17, 2003)

Fatal Flaws in Ethics Watchdogs Bill C-34 -- Watchdogs Lack Coherence, Independence, Transparency and Accountability  (May 20, 2003)

Public Will Be Banned From Complaining About Unethical Politicians, Or Challenging Ethics Rulings -- Fatal Flaws Undermine Bill C-34 (June 10, 2003)

Liberals Want New Ethics Watchdog To Be An Unaccountable Government Lapdog (June 11, 2003)

Democracy Watch Calls on Senate, and PM to Strengthen Bill C-4 and Other Measures to Ensure Effective Ethics/Spending Enforcement (February 17, 2004)

Democracy Watch Hails Passage of Bill C-4, Ethics Enforcement for Federal Politicians Closer Than Ever in Canadian History (March 31, 2004)

Federal Ethics Commissioner Continues Completely Ineffective Enforcement of Cabinet Ethics Rules (Hill Times, April 25, 2005)

Group Calls on Ethics Commissioner to Rule On Deal Making by Prime Minister, MPs and PMO Staffer (May 20, 2005)

Ethics Commissioner Must Rule on PMO Staffer, Fails To Fulfill Legal Duties By Refusing To Do So (June 7, 2005)

Group Files Court Challenge of Federal Ethics Commissioner, Registrar of Lobbyists (September 29, 2005) - Ethics Court Case 2005 Application (September 20, 2005)

Lobbying Laws Endanger the Public - Allow for Secret, Unethical Lobbying (Globe and Mail, October 12, 2005)

Dingwall and TPC Mess Could Have Been Avoided if Former Ethics Counsellor and Lobbyist Registrar Had Done Their Jobs Properly (October 17, 2005)

Federal Liberals' Lobbying Scandal is 11 Years Old (Hill Times, October 24, 2005)
 

8. Summary of Democracy Watch's Eight Outstanding Ethics Complaints