Wednesday, June 29, 2005

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch filed a complaint against federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro about the Commissioner’s own activities and statements, and called on the Commissioner to resign.  The complaint details several activities that Democracy Watch believes violate the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code).  Democracy Watch believes that, as a Cabinet appointee, the Commissioner is covered by the Code, but even if he is not Democracy Watch’s letter gives the Commissioner 30 days to ensure an independent review of his activities, or resign, or Democracy Watch will pursue its legal alternatives for challenging the Commissioner. (Backgrounder, Letter to Ethics Commissioner, Links to Key Information Sources About the Ethics Commissioner)

“Very unfortunately, Canada’s first ethics commissioner has acted unethically in several ways in his first year in office, and has shown clearly that he has no intention of maintaining a reasonable standard of enforcement of federal ethics rules,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.  “The Supreme Court of Canada stated in 1996 that strict enforcement of strong ethics rules is needed to have a democratic government, and the Federal Court echoed this conclusion in 2004.  Democracy Watch is taking this action to ensure the courts’ rulings are no longer ignored by federal politicians.” (Supreme Court of Canada 1996 ruling, Federal Court 2004 ruling)

Under the Parliament of Canada Act (the Act), the primary mandate of the Ethics Commissioner is “to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders” (sub-section 72.07(a)) and (under subsection 72.05(1)) to administer and enforce the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code).  Democracy Watch believes that this mandate requires the Ethics Commissioner to comply with administrative and natural justice principles, including acting fairly and impartially and publicly ruling on all situations involving the application of ethics rules to everyone covered by the rules (Cabinet ministers, full-time ministerial staff, parliamentary secretaries, some Cabinet appointees, and MPs - approximately 3,000 people in total).

Democracy Watch’s complaint details several actions and statements by the Ethics Commissioner which lead it to conclude that the Commissioner is biased against maintaining a reasonable enforcement standard for federal ethics rules, is failing to comply with administrative and natural justice principles, and is in violation of the ethics rules.

“Several times in the past year, the Ethics Commissioner has unfortunately either chosen to protect public officials from accountability instead of properly enforcing federal ethics rules, or simply chosen not to enforce the rules,” said Conacher. “Incredibly, laws against parking illegally are enforced more strictly and effectively than the ethics rules for federal politicians, their staff and Cabinet appointees.”

The federal Ethics Commissioner has demonstrated in several actions and statements that he and his staff lack the expertise to fulfill his legal duties, and he has also confirmed this in public statements, as follows:

• “When I was first approached and asked if I would explore this possibility with people, I had no idea what the position [of Ethics Commissioner] was.  I didn’t know there was such a position."
• “We have people with legal background on staff, who've had legal experience, but not practising lawyers where that's their job from day to day.”
• “We do not have a job description called “investigator”. We have no employees of that kind at all.”

1. The Ethics Commissioner’s legal duties place him a conflict of interest (as the Commissioner has acknowledged) as he is required both to give confidential advice to, and rule on the ethics of, public office holders’ activities (To explain, if the Commissioner gives confidential advice to a public office holder about a specific activity and then a complaint is filed with the Commissioner alleging that the same public office holder has violated the ethics rules by engaging in that same activity, the Commissioner will have already reached a conclusion about the activity and therefore will not be able to impartially investigate the activity).

2. The Ethics Commissioner hired almost all of former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson’s staff, even though the entire former Office of the Ethics Counsellor was found by the Federal Court to be biased in a July 2004 ruling, and the Commissioner’s current senior advisors are the same people who were the senior advisors of the former Ethics Counsellor. Federal Court 2004 ruling

3. Without a contract bidding competition, the Ethics Commissioner hired David W. Scott (former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s lawyer) and Scott’s law firm Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG) to investigate allegations that Liberal Cabinet minister Judy Sgro violated the Public Office Holders Code, even though the firm has extensive ties to the Liberal Party (BLG donated approximately $165,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada between 2000 and 2003, and also donated more than $25,000 to Paul Martin’s campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party); BLG has three partners (one of which is Scott) representing former Chrétien and Jean Pelletier at the Gomery Commission Inquiry, and; BLG hired Gar Knutson, a former Cabinet colleague of Judy Sgro’s, in February 2005 during its investigation into Sgro’s situation).

4. The Ethics Commissioner changed a letter to Judy Sgro at her request, and then was not fully honest in his public statements about changing the letter.   The letter related to his ongoing investigation into allegations that Sgro had violated the Public Office Holders Code, and the Commissioner inappropriately gave the letter to Sgro in early May 2005, at least one month before completing his investigation (and at a time when an election seemed to be soon to occur).  Not surprisingly, Sgro released the letter to the public and claimed that it cleared her of any wrongdoing.

5. The Ethics Commissioner refused to consider 10 of the 13 allegations made against Judy Sgro and claimed that the matters were not within his powers to review, even though the rules in the Public Office Holders Code address every action by anyone covered by the Code (the Code requires Cabinet ministers and others covered by the Code to “uphold the highest ethical standards” (subsection 3(1)) and 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” (subsection 3(2)).  In addition, in ruling on the three allegations the Ethics Commissioner decided to consider, the Ethics Commissioner did not mention the two rules quoted above even though the rules clearly apply to Sgro’s actions.

6.  Also with regard to the ruling on the Sgro situation, on June 23, 2005 the Ethics Commissioner testified at a hearing of the House of Commons Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics examining the Commissioner’s ruling in the Sgro affair.  Subsection 72.05(4) of the Parliament of Canada Act states clearly that the Committee has no “jurisdiction” over the Commissioner’s actions concerning public office holders such as Sgro, and so it was completely improper for the Commissioner to appear before the Committee (and illegal for the Committee to hold the hearing), especially before a Committee that has, as its next agenda item, consideration of a motion of non-confidence in the Ethics Commissioner.  It is also legally improper for an administrative decision-maker like the Commissioner to comment publicly on a ruling.

7. The Ethics Commissioner examined Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal’s action of requiring immigration applicants to post a bond with his office to determine if this action violated the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code).  As in the Judy Sgro ruling, the Ethics Commissioner failed to mention in his ruling several ethics rules that clearly apply to Grewal’s actions, and only ruled generally that Grewal’s actions placed him “in an apparent conflict of interest” and that he “has not fully complied with an obligation under the [MPs] Code” and that Grewal’s actions “were an error in judgment made in good faith.”

8. The Ethics Commissioner has also refused or failed to make public rulings about the activities of seven people covered by the Public Office Holders Code, even though their activities raise clear questions about violations of the rules (the seven people and their activities are: Lyle Vanclief and John Manley both becoming lobbyists before the 2-year cooling off period required by the rules has passed; Canadian Transportation Safety Board member Jim Walsh attending the Liberal caucus Christmas party and sitting at the Prime Minister’s table; Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Chief of Staff Tim Murphy’s participation in talks with Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal concerning Grewal and his spouse, Conservative MP Nina Grewal, withdrawing their support from the Conservatives in key confidence votes in the House of Commons); Prime Minister Paul Martin’s participation in the Grewal situation; Judy Sgro’s Chief of Staff Ihor Wons’ involvement in the Sgro situation, and; the Prime Minister’s Director of Communications Scott Reid who kept allegations about Sgro secret).

9. The Ethics Commissioner delayed for at least 10 months his review of the Prime Minister’s regime for removing himself from policy-making discussions and actions, even though the regime was last updated in July 2003 and had no legal validity as it was established by the biased former Ethics Counsellor.

10. The Ethics Commissioner decided not to audit any financial disclosure statement filed by anyone covered by federal ethics rules, and stated that it would create a “police state” if he did so, even though the statements are a key basis for determining whether anyone is in violation of the ethics rules.  He also failed to find two MPs who failed to file their disclosure statements by the legal deadline guilty in a public ruling.

11. The Ethics Commissioner, along with two senior staff, attended on December 9, 2004 a behind-closed-doors meeting of a parliamentary committee that was discussing the interpretation of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) even though the Commissioner enforces the MPs Code and the committee is made up of MPs.   In addition, the Commissioner requested and agreed to have a staff researcher from the Subcommittee on the Disclosure Statement under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs) participate in an internal working group of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner.

12. The Ethics Commissioner has stated that his enforcement policy and practice is based on the following beliefs, all of which show clearly that the Commissioner believes that none of the usual activities of enforcement agencies are needed to enforce the federal ethics rules because the Commissioner believes that no one would try to break the rules, and (at the same time) that everyone is guilty of breaking the rules all the time:

• “We assume that people are telling us the truth”;
• “I doubt whether the people filling out the [financial disclosure] form would have changed the form depending on the answer to the question, because that would be lying, and I don't think anyone would.”
• “[N]o matter what the topic was, if I wanted to show that person X, wouldn’t matter who it was, is in conflict about that topic, I bet if I worked one afternoon I could find it.”

14. The Ethics Commissioner has failed or refused to re-consider complaints filed by Democracy Watch with the former Ethics Counsellor, even though the Federal Court in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General) (F.C.), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 83 stated clearly that the creation of the Ethics Commissioner position by the federal government created an office that had the responsibility and duty to re-consider the rulings which the Court quashed based on the structural and specific bias of the former Ethics Counsellor and his office. Federal Court 2004 ruling, Summary of Democracy Watch's Eight Outstanding Ethics Complaints

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

June 29, 2005

RE: Conflict of Interest / Bias of the Ethics Commissioner

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

We are filing this letter to request an investigation of what Democracy Watch believes is a violation of the Conflict of Interest and Post-employment Code for Public Office Holders ("Public Office Holders Code").  We have reviewed the statements which you have made to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (the "Committee"), as well as statements to other parliamentary committees and other public statements.  We have also reviewed your record of performance in the role of Ethics Commissioner.

This review has lead us to the conclusion that you are biased against maintaining a reasonable standard of enforcement of the Public Office Holders Code, and of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons ("MPs Code") contrary to both Codes themselves.

 In the circumstances, we request that this matter be investigated by one of the provincial Ethics Commissioners, or some other independent body.  Alternatively, if you are in agreement with our concerns, we suggest that your resignation as Ethics Commissioner would be appropriate.
 

I. Application of the Code to the Ethics Commissioner
The Ethics Commissioner is appointed by the Governor in Council, pursuant to s.72.01 of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. P-1 (the "Act").  Section 72.06(c) of the Act makes it clear that Governor in Council appointees are "public office holders".  As such, the Ethics Commissioner is a public office holder under the Act, and is subject to the Public Office Holders Code.

II. Relevant Sections of the Code
Democracy Watch states that the Ethics Commissioner has failed to adhere to the following principles found in s.3 of the Public Office Holders Code:

(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.

(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.

(3) Public office holders, in fulfilling their official duties and responsibilities, shall make decisions in the public interest and with regard to the merits of each case.

III. Nature of the Conflict of Interest
 Democracy Watch states that the Ethics Commissioner has failed in the above obligations under the Public Office Holders Code in two respects: the Ethics Commissioner is systemically or institutionally biased and incapable of meeting its conflict of interest obligations under both codes; and the Ethics Commissioner has demonstrated a specific bias through conduct and behavior.

 We cite for your reference the language adopted by the Federal Court in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General) (F.C.), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 83.  In ascertaining the existence of bias, the court asks "what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically - and having thought the matter through - conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the person], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly."  We commend this consideration to you in ascertaining whether the Public Office Holders Code has been breached.

 The details of the nature of the conflict of interest are as follows:

1. Systemic or Institutional Bias
The Ethics Commissioner has conflicting obligations under the Act and the Public Office Holders Code which make it impossible for him to avoid an appearance of bias.  The Ethics Commissioner can be called upon to provide confidential advice pursuant to s.72.07(c) of the Act, and that confidence must be maintained even in the face of a complaint about the same issue, for which the Ethics Commissioner may be required to prepare a report available to the public pursuant to s.72.08(5) of the Act.  In these circumstances, the Ethics Commissioner will not be seen to be performing his duties to the best of his ability in the public interest.  We cite the Judy Sgro situation as an obvious example.
This conflict and apparent bias has been recognized by you in your comments before the Committee on June 2, 2005, and June 9, 2005.
This conflict and apparent bias also exists when the Commissioner operates under the MPs Code, as under section 26 of the MPs Code the Commissioner is required to give confidential advice to MPs upon request and the advice given is binding on any future considerations of the same issue by the Commissioner.

Specific activities and statements demonstrating bias include:
2. Hiring almost all of former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson's staff, even though the entire former Office of the Ethics Counsellor was found by the Federal Court to be biased in a July 2004 ruling, and the Commissioner's current senior advisors are the same people who were the senior advisors of the former Ethics Counsellor.

3. Hiring David W. Scott and his law firm Borden Ladner Gervais LLP ("BLG") to conduct an investigation into Liberal Cabinet minister Judy Sgro.  Among other connections to the federal Liberal Party, Mr. Scott and BLG was then, and remains, counsel for former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in his participation before the Sponsorship Inquiry.  One of Judy Sgro's former Liberal Cabinet colleagues is a member of BLG and was hired in February 2005, during the investigation period.  Further, BLG donated almost three times as much to the federal Liberal Party and party candidates between 2000 and 2003 than to all other federal political parties combined.

4. Giving a letter addressing the same situation as in #3 above to Judy Sgro in the middle of the investigation, as well as changing the letter at her request, and initially failing to acknowledge in public statements that the letter had been changed.

5. Preparing and releasing a report regarding Judy Sgro based upon an investigation completed by BLG even after acknowledging to the Committee on May 10, 2005, the potential for the appearance of impropriety arising from retaining BLG to complete the investigation.  The report prepared by BLG, which is supposed to be merely of a fact-finding nature, is confidential and not available to the public.  In addition, refusing in that report to consider 10 of the 13 allegations made against Sgro (even though federal ethics rules give you clear jurisdiction to consider allegations about any action by any public office holder), and failing to specify all the rules that apply to the three (3) allegations that were considered.

6. Also with regard to the ruling on the Sgro situation, testifying at a hearing of the Committee  examining the Commissioner’s ruling in the Sgro affair even though subsection 72.05(4) of the Parliament of Canada Act states clearly that the Committee has no “jurisdiction” over the Commissioner’s actions concerning public office holders such as Sgro and it is also legally improper for an administrative decision-maker such as yourself to comment publicly on a ruling (especially before a Committee that has, as its next agenda item, consideration of a motion of non-confidence in you).

7. As in the Judy Sgro ruling, failing to properly explain or apply the ethics rules relevant to your ruling about Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal with respect to his action of requiring immigration applicants to post a bond with his office (let alone to interpret and to apply) several ethics rules that clearly apply to Grewal’s actions.

8. Delaying or refusing to make public your interpretation of the Public Office Holders Code as it relates to seven (7) separate individuals, namely Lyle Vanclief, John Manley, Jim Walsh, Tim Murphy, Prime Minister Paul Martin in relation to Tim Murphy's actions, Ihor Wons’ involvement in the Judy Sgro situation, and the Prime Minister’s Director of Communications Scott Reid who kept allegations about Sgro secret - all very public cases of apparent violations of the Public Office Holders Code.  A failure to give reasons undermines public confidence in the propriety of the decisions made.

9. Failing or refusing to properly maintain, review and update Prime Minister Paul Martin's recusal requirement regime, as discussed before the Committee on May 10, 2005, even though the regime was last updated in July 2003 by the biased former Ethics Counsellor and therefore lacks moral and legal authority.

10. Failing to audit or otherwise scrutinize the disclosure statements of public office holders and members of the House of Commons, even though the statements are a key basis for determining whether anyone is in violation of the ethics rules.  As well, acknowledging publicly that two MP's had failed or refused to submit the financial disclosure document required by the MPs Code by the legal deadline, yet failing to find them guilty in a public ruling.

11. Appearing in camera before the sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which deals with the disclosure statement under the MPs Code.  This in camera session related to the enforcement of the MPs Code, and was with the people against whom the MPs Code is to be enforced.  In addition, you requested and agreed to have a staff researcher from the Subcommittee on the Disclosure Statement under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs) participate in an internal working group of your office.

12. Maintaining an enforcement policy that clearly fails even to attempt to ensure compliance with both codes, as demonstrated by comments to the Committee on May 10, 2005 as follows: "You can't legislate people into behaving ethically. It's simply not possible. What you can do is specify a standard and hope that over time more and more people will want to reach it, and therefore will"; by suggesting to the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs at its April 14, 2005 hearing that it is unrealistic to attempt to fully enforce both codes because of the apparent wide application of the "apparent conflict of interest" obligation in the codes, and; by making other public statements such as:

• “I doubt whether the people filling out the [financial disclosure] form would have changed the form depending on the answer to the question, because that would be lying, and I don't think anyone would”;
• “[N]o matter what the topic was, if I wanted to show that person X, wouldn’t matter who it was, is in conflict about that topic, I bet if I worked one afternoon I could find it.”

14. Failing or refusing to re-consider complaints filed by Democracy Watch with the former Ethics Counsellor, even though the Federal Court in Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General) (F.C.), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 83 stated clearly that the creation of the Ethics Commissioner position by the federal government created an office that had the responsibility and duty to re-consider the rulings which the Court quashed based on the structural and specific bias of the former Ethics Counsellor and his office.

These actions demonstrate a lack of leadership and accountability for the ethical standards mandated by the both codes, and which are clearly needed to create and maintain the level of public confidence Canadians should have in their public officers.

IV. Request for Action
In light of the above, we reiterate our request for an independent, fair and impartial investigation and review of this matter.  Clearly, this issue cannot be addressed by your office, and we therefore commend the practice of referring this matter to a provincial ethics commissioner.

In the alternative, you may well recognize the accuracy of the position taken by Democracy Watch, in which case we suggest that the appropriate course of action would be to resign.

Democracy Watch takes the codes and the principles behind them very seriously, as has 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.  We expect nothing less from your office.

In the circumstances, we ask you to set an example of public accountability and address this matter 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

Original to follow by mail

1. Office of the federal Ethics Commissioner - http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec-bce/site/pages/ethics-e.htm
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-bce/site/pages/AR_MP_EN_web.pdf

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-bce/site/pages/AR_POH_EN_web.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-bce/site/content/coi_2004_e.pdf

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
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/oec-bce/site/pages/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 News Releases and Op-Eds about the Ethics Commissioner
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)
 

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