Tuesday, March 14, 2006

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch filed open complaint letters with federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro concerning the switching of political parties by Belinda Stronach and David Emerson.  The letters raise questions about whether federal ethics rules were violated by Stronach and Emerson, and by Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, in the two party-switching situations (To see the complaint letter re: Stronach and Martin, click here -- To see complaint letter re: Emerson and Harper, click here).

Unlike the opposition parties’ complaints about these situations, Democracy Watch calls on the Ethics Commissioner to resign or at least delegate his decision-making authority to a provincial ethics commissioner because Democracy Watch does not believe, based upon his record since he was appointed in May 2004, that the Commissioner can fairly, impartially or competently investigate and rule on its complaints.  Democracy Watch filed an application in court in September 2005 challenging the federal Ethics Commissioner for bias (September 29, 2005 news release about court application).

Also in contrast to the opposition parties’ complaints, Democracy Watch is raising questions about violations of different rules in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the MPs Code) which came into force in October 2004, and also about violations of rules in the 20-year-old Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code).

“Democracy Watch is filing these complaints against party-switching federal politicians and the Prime Ministers who have facilitated and rewarded their switching, and is requesting that the Ethics Commissioner step aside and have someone else rule on the complaints, as part of its ongoing12-year-old struggle to establish fair, impartial and competent enforcement of federal ethics rules,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch’s position is that the opposition parties are incorrect to complain about Stronach and Martin and Emerson and Harper violating section 8 of the MPs Code that prohibits MPs from furthering their private interests by switching and receiving the pay and perks of being appointed to Cabinet because the definition of “furthering private interests” in subsection 3(1) of the MPs Code explicitly exempts situations involving “the remuneration or benefits of the Member.”

Democracy Watch’s position is also that the opposition parties’ complaints against Paul Martin and Stephen Harper should have been filed as complaints about violations of the Public Office Holders Code, given that both were in their role as Prime Minister when they appointed Stronach and Emerson to Cabinet, and also that the complaint against Emerson should also have been filed under the Public Office Holders Code, given that Emerson was a Cabinet minister when he switched to the Conservatives.

 Democracy Watch’s complaints call for an investigation of whether the following rules were violated by the party-switchers:

• Belinda Stronach, with her action of switching in between elections from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party and negotiating a Cabinet posting as part of her switch, in 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;”
• David Emerson, with his action (while an MP and also still a Liberal Cabinet minister) of switching right after an election from the Liberals to the Conservatives and negotiating a Cabinet posting as part of his switch, in violation of the same rules as set out above for Belinda Stronach, and also in violation of the following rules of the Public Office Holders Code which apply to Cabinet ministers:
• “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.”
• Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, by appointing Belinda Stronach and David Emerson (respectively) to Cabinet posts in these situations, in violation of the same Public Office Holders Code rules as David Emerson (subsections 3(1) and 3(2)).

In December 2004, a spokesperson for the Ethics Commissioner stated that the Commissioner would not investigate complaints filed by the public.  However, on March 3, 2006, the Ethics Commissioner stated that he was launching an investigation into David Emerson on his 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 Ethics Commissioner is fully empowered to review complaints filed by the public.  Democracy Watch’s position is also that it is a violation of the right to freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to require the public to find a politician 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 mentioned above, Democracy Watch has filed an court application against the federal Ethics Commissioner, and it intends to pursue future court actions as needed to ensure effective ethics enforcement.

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

March 14, 2006

RE: Request for investigation into actions of Belinda Stronach and Paul Martin

Dear Mr. 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 Belinda Stronach, and a violation of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code) by Paul Martin.

 Democracy Watch’s position is that serious questions are raised by Belinda Stronach, with her action of switching in between elections from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party and negotiating a Cabinet posting as part of her switch, 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”

• “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.”

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 (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, and;
• the decision not to initiate an investigation into the complaint filed against Liberal Cabinet minister Tony Valeri.

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).

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

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

March 14, 2006

RE: Request for investigation into actions of David Emerson and Stephen Harper

Dear Mr. 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 David Emerson, and also a violation of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Public Office Holders Code) by David Emerson in his role as a Cabinet Minister, Stephen Harper in his role as Prime Minister.

Democracy Watch’s position is that serious questions are raised by David Emerson, with his action (while an MP and also still a Liberal Cabinet minister) of switching right after an election from the Liberals to the Conservatives and negotiating a Cabinet posting as part of his switch, 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”

• “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.”

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 (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, and;
• the decision not to initiate an investigation into the complaint filed against Liberal Cabinet minister Tony Valeri.

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).

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

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