Wednesday, November 7, 2007

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch criticized Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper for refusing to initiate a judicial inquiry under the federal Inquiries Act into the situation involving payments made to former Conservative Prime Minister by German-Canadian deal maker Karlheinz Schreiber and the $2.1 million settlement payment made by the federal government to Mr. Mulroney resulting from his mid-1990s libel lawsuit.

• To see details about the inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber situation, the Oliphant Commission, which was finally launched in June 2008, click here;
• To see details about Democracy Watch's court challenge of the federal Ethics Commissioner's ruling concerning the judicial inquiry into the situation, click here;
• To see more details about the need for a fully independent and comprehensive judicial inquiry into many situations, click here.

Democracy Watch also criticized the federal Liberals for their resistance to holding judicial inquiries into other highly questionable situations when they were the ruling party, and all federal parties for ignoring many other questionable situations in the past 15 years in federal politics.

Prime Minister Harper has claimed that it would be “dangerous” for the ruling party to initiate inquiries into past prime minister’s actions, but when they were in opposition Conservative MPs called for an inquiry into the Liberal government’s investigation into and settlement payment with Mr. Mulroney, and more recently the Conservatives did not find it at all dangerous: 

• to appoint an Independent Advisor last April to review the federal Liberal government’s public opinion research practices between 1990 and March 31, 2003, and to promise in their election platform to follow-up with a judicial inquiry “if required”, and;
• to promise in their election platform to create a more independent public prosecutions office and to “Give the Director of Public Prosecutions the mandate to review recent decisions on prosecutions in the sponsorship scandal and other matters which have been the subject of investigation by the Auditor General and the Ethics Counsellor or Commissioner.”

In fact, the Inquiries Act stated purpose is for inquiries into“any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business” (section 2).  Democracy Watch called on all federal political parties to change the Inquiries Act to ensure that a majority of MPs could pass a resolution initiating a judicial inquiry (currently, only the federal Cabinet can initiate an inquiry).

Democracy Watch also called on all federal parties to ensure that judicial inquiries are initiated not only into the Mulroney-Schreiber-libel case payment situation, but also into the following 15 highly questionable situations over the past 15 years of federal politics (NOTE: To be clear, Democracy Watch is not saying that any of the situations definitely involved wrongdoing, just that all of the situations raise key questions that remain unanswered). 

Before initiating inquiries into any of the following 15 questionable situations, all federal political parties should ensure that the new whistleblower protection law is extended to cover testimony of everyone at the inquiry to protect them from any form of retaliation::

1. Broken promises and dishonesty inquiry - to determine exactly how many election promises have been broken, and how many politicians and government officials have been dishonest with the public, in the past 15 years, and to develop recommendations for rules, enforcement systems and penalties to discourage dishonesty in politics (To see the list of the federal Conservatives' 24 broken accountability and democratic reform promises, click here -- For more details, go to Democracy Watch's Honesty in Politics Campaign page)
2. Former Prime Minister Chrétien’s dealings in Shawinigan inquiry - the federal Information Commissioner has applied to have the Federal Court order that the federal Access to Information Act requires Chrétien to disclose his agenda books from between January 1994 to June 1999 (curiously, the Conservatives are challenging this application), and if the agenda books are ever made public they may provide the basis for an inquiry to determine the extent of Chrétien’s dealings in Shawinigan (For more details,  click here and click here)
3. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s business dealings inquiry - Martin owned Canada Steamship Lines for much of the time he was Prime Minister, and both Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson and Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro were completely ineffective at ensuring that federal ethics rules were complied with -- an inquiry would determine whether Mr. Martin complied with all of the ethics rules at all times (For more details, click here and click here and click here) 
4. Missing Adscam sponsorship scandal money inquiry - the Gomery Commission did not determine where more than $40 million of the funds involved in the sponsorship program ended up -- an inquiry would attempt to track down the missing money (For more details, click here)
5. Ethics Counsellor’s enforcement record inquiry - a Federal Court ruling in July 2004 found that Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson was biased because he was controlled by the Prime Minister, and that he was therefore ineffective in enforcing the federal Cabinet’s ethics rules -- an inquiry would determine just how many Cabinet ministers, their staff, and senior government officials violated the ethics rules during Mr. Wilson’s term in office from June 1994 to June 2004 (For more details, click here and click here)
6. Ethics Commissioner’s enforcement record inquiry - Democracy Watch’s challenged Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro in court, alleging that he improperly failed to enforce federal Cabinet ethics rules, and the new ethics rules for MPs (which came into force in October 2004), in more than an dozen cases, but the court case was derailed by the resignation of Mr. Shapiro in April 2007 -- an inquiry would determine just how many Cabinet ministers, their staff, senior government officials, and MPs violated ethics rules during Mr. Shapiro’s term in office from July 1994 to April 2007 (For more details, click here)
7. Gifts and benefits inquiry - federal ethics rules for Cabinet ministers, their staff, MPs, and public servants restrict gifts and benefits, but Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson and Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro were completely negligent and never ruled publicly on exactly what type and amount of gifts and other benefits they are allowed to receive -- an inquiry would determine who has received what gifts and benefits, and make recommendations to close this secret gift-giving loophole (For details, click here and/or go to Democracy Watch's Government Ethics Campaign page)
8. Lobbying law enforcement inquiry - Federal Registrar of Lobbyists Michael Nelson, who is the front-line enforcement officer for the Lobbyists Registration Act (LRA), admitted to a parliamentary committee that before 2006 the LRA was essentially not enforced -- an inquiry would determine how many lobbyists violated the LRA between 1988 (when the LRA became law) and 2006 (NOTE: Democracy Watch’s current court challenge of the Registrar is a sort of inquiry into the Registrar’s lack of enforcement of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct since 1997 (when the Code came into force) -- For more details, click here)
9. Party leadership races inquiry - donations to party leadership races were not limited nor required to be disclosed until after the Conservatives’ race was completed in spring 2004, and MPs ethics rules were not in force until October 2004; as a result some federal politicians may have been, or may continue to be, in a conflict of interest because of large, secret donations made to their campaigns (either during the campaign, or to pay off campaign debts) -- an inquiry would determine the extent of these conflict of interests (For details, go to Democracy Watch's Money in Politics Campaign page)
10. MPs “trust funds” inquiry - former Liberal MP and Cabinet minister Tony Ianno told the media in 2003 that he maintained a trust fund that contained more than $200,000 in donations but the identity of donors and the amounts they donated has not been publicly disclosed -- an inquiry could determine how many other MPs had such trust funds (which were, finally, made illegal by the Federal Accountability Act as of June 12, 2007), and who donated how much to the funds, and on what the funds were spent (For details, go to Democracy Watch's Money in Politics Campaign page)
11. Riding associations “trust funds” inquiry - the Federal Accountability Act did not make trust funds maintained by federal riding associations illegal, so an inquiry would determine how many riding associations have such funds, who donated how much to the funds, on what the funds are being spent, and make recommendations to close this secret donations loophole (For details, go to Democracy Watch's Money in Politics Campaign page)
12. Political party “trust funds” inquiry - the Federal Accountability Act did not make trust funds maintained by federal political parties illegal, so an inquiry would determine which parties have such funds (and have had such funds in the past, including funds for retiring party leaders), who donated how much to the funds, on what the funds are being spent, and make recommendations to close this secret donations loophole (For details, go to Democracy Watch's Money in Politics Campaign page)
13. Political fundraising inquiry - when he retired from the Senate of Canada, Liberal fundraiser Leo Kolber told the media that many people asked him over the years what the government would do for them in return for their donation -- an inquiry would examine the extent of donors requesting such favours over the past 15 years (such requests are illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada) (For details, go to Democracy Watch's Money in Politics Campaign page)
14. Nomination races inquiry - federal election candidate nomination races are controlled by the political parties (other than Elections Canada’s regulation of donations since January 2004) -- an inquiry would determine the extent of undemocratic problems with such races over the past 15 years (For more details, click here)
15. Hiring, appointments and contracts inquiry - serious questions have been raised about many hirings, appointments and large government contracts (from the recent billions in military hardware purchases to the gun registry computer contracts) in the past 15 years -- an inquiry would focus on answering these questions and recommending measures to ensure fair hiring, appointments and contracting processes. (For more details, go to Democracy Watch's Voter Rights Campaign)