Wednesday, March 21, 2001

OTTAWA - Today, in an open letter to federal Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson, Democracy Watch called for an investigation of the Ministers and other public office holders involved in designing and approving the cash-for-access scheme at the upcoming Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. In return for paying amounts ranging from $75,000 to $1.5 million, Canadian corporations will receive, among other things, the right to attend "networking events" at the Summit and, in some cases, to choose "priority seating" at Summit events. (Please see set out below the text of the letter to Howard Wilson)

Democracy Watch believes that this scheme violates the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, which requires public office holders (including ministers, secretaries of state, deputy ministers and some ministerial staff) to "uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced" and prohibits public office holders from, among other things: assisting private entities, and having even "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."

"Giving corporations access to policy-makers in return for money is not only undemocratic, it's unethical," said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. "Such cash-for-access schemes reveal that rather than being objective and impartial, Canada's public officials are open to being bought by corporate interests."

In its letter to the Ethics Counsellor, Democracy Watch calls for an investigation of the scheme and a ruling about Code violations before the opening of the Summit of the Americas. Democracy Watch does not believe that Prime Minister Chrétien's rationale that such schemes are good because they save taxpayers from having to pay the full cost of such events in any way aligns with the democratic principles set out in the Code.

"Saving taxpayers money is not a valid reason for abandoning the important principle of governing with integrity," said Conacher, "The ethics rules exist to prevent such undemocratic behaviour, and we call on the Ethics Counsellor to act with integrity and stop this unethical cash-for-access scheme."

Howard Wilson
Ethics Counsellor
66 Slater St., 22nd Floor
Ottawa, Canada
K1A 0C9
Fax: (613) 995-7308

March 21, 2001

Dear Mr. Wilson:

We are filing this letter to request that you investigate what Democracy Watch believes to be a violation of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (the Code). As you know, the Code covers all ministers of the Crown, ministerial staff and appointees such as deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers.

According to an article in The Globe and Mail yesterday, the federal government has established a scheme through which Canadian corporations can sponsor events at the upcoming Summit of the Americas in Quebec City for sums ranging from $75,000 to $1.5 million. In return, the corporations will receive, among other things, the right to attend "networking events" at the Summit and, in some cases, to choose "priority seating" at Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's Cultural Performance and Evening Reception on the Saturday night of the Summit. Two companies, Scotiabank and Alcan, have agreed to pay $500,000 each to co-sponsor the reception.

According to a quotation in the article, a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the right to "priority seating" included choosing a seat at a table with specific leaders or delegates.

This cash-for-access scheme raise serious questions about whether the Cabinet ministers and public office holders who designed the scheme have violated the following rules, among others possibly, in the Code:

• Part I, sub-section 3(1), which requires public office holders to, among other things, "uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced."
• Part I, sub-section.3(2), which requires, among other things, that public office holders "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."
• Part I, sub-section 3(7), which reads, "Public office holders shall 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."
• Part II, sub-section 23(1) of the Code states, "A public officer holder shall 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."

The companies who are paying money to the federal government in return for access to the federal government's event are clearly private entities, and not only is the scheme assisting them by giving them access to events at the Summit, the assistance could very likely result in preferential treatment for these private entities. In addition, the public office holders involved already appear to be under an obligation to these entities, given that these entities are paying for access. Finally, these entities clearly can profit from special consideration on the part of at least some of the office holders involved, given that the office holders have a role in drafting and enacting the laws and regulations under which these entities operate.

We therefore request that you immediately investigate which Ministers and other public office holders were involved in designing and approving this cash-for-access scheme, and determine, before the opening of the Summit of the Americas, whether by designing this scheme the public office holders have violated the Code.

The standard for evaluating these activities is whether "real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest" were created. This standard creates an affirmative obligation on all members of the Federal Cabinet to avoid even potential or apparent conflicts of interest.

We look forward to your investigation of this matter, and await your reply.

Sincerely,

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