John Ivison: Liberal cash-for-access events aren’t just ugly, they may be illegal
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred ChartrandFinance Minister Bill Morneau
The government’s cash-for-access scandals are multiplying like zebra mussels, as more ministers are revealed to have rented out their public office to anyone prepared to stuff hundreds of dollars into the Liberal Party’s coffers.
The case for the defence is that the government does not offer preferential access to donors and there is no conflict of interest, either real or perceived. All Canadians have equal access to ministers, said Marco Mendicino, the Liberal MP who drew the short straw and had to defend the scheme on CTV’s Question Period.
The Conservatives heard clunking sounds in the Trudeau electoral juggernaut even before the prime minister lauded one of the world’s great dictators and found himself being booed at Sunday’s Grey Cup.
“They are breaking their own code of ethics and are close to breaking the law,” said Candice Bergen, again on Question Period.
Bergen had it half right. Five-hundred-dollar-a-ticket fundraisers in private homes, such as the one attended by finance minister Bill Morneau and the chief executives of companies that lobby Finance Canada, clearly breaches the Liberals’ open and accountable government guideline on preferential access for donors.
Fred Chartrand / The Canadian PressEthics Commissioner Mary Dawson prepares to appear at Commons committee, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday June 10, 2014.
But the fundraisers go beyond that. There is a strong case to make that they violate the federal Conflict of Interest Act.
The problem here is not lack of legislation — it’s want of enforcement.
Section 7 of the federal act says: “No public office holder shall, in the exercise of an official power, duty or function, give preferential treatment based on the identity of the person or organization that represents the first mentioned person or organization.”
It’s clumsily worded but it effectively says the same thing as Trudeau’s “preferential treatment” guideline.
The Liberals might argue that no preferential treatment has been proffered, even if it was the expectation of being treated preferentially that motivated most donors.
But if section 7 is deemed not to have been contravened, other portions of the Act are clearly being violated — such as section 16, which says, “No public office holder shall personally solicit funds from any persons or organizations if it would place the public office holder in a conflict of interest.”
Is this rule null and void just because it is party bagmen who are passing the hat at private gatherings, not the minister?
Canada has a conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, though you may not have heard of her, since her modus operandi is to create as few waves as possible.
Mary Dawson has released only 34 public reports on the 219 cases she has investigated since 2007, finding just 10 people guilty in all that time.
Dawson’s term is up in January but she won’t say whether she hopes to be reappointed and she didn’t return calls for comment for this article.
The ethics commissioner has called the pay to play fundraising activities of the Liberals “unsavoury” but has said she cannot pass judgment on whether they breach Trudeau’s own rules because the prime minister gave that mandate to the Privy Council Office.
Yet it is not Trudeau’s guidelines she should be enforcing, it’s the Conflict of Interest Act — her raison d’etre, a function so central to her office it makes up part of its name.
She might argue that Morneau and the others were not exercising “official power, duty or function” at the fundraisers.
But ministers did not attend these events as private individuals — they were there in their official capacity and in Morneau’s case, it was said to be part of his budget consultation outreach.
In fact, Dawson hasn’t said much, beyond pointing out that political activity is beyond her remit. But rich donors are not shelling out $1500 as a show of democratic philanthropy — the expectation is that they will enjoy future favours. As such, the suspicion must be that political activity is indivisible from public policy.
As far as we know, Dawson hasn’t even investigated to see whether preferential treatment was extended to top-level Liberal Party donors precisely because they were donors
As far as we know, Dawson hasn’t even investigated to see whether preferential treatment was extended to top-level Liberal Party donors precisely because they were donors.
Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, said there are plenty of reasons found in the Conflict of Interest Act for Dawson to say to ministers that they are in violation. “If she was actually a watchdog who was fulfilling the main purpose of the Conflict of Interest Act, she would rule that ministers can’t participate in these events,” he said.
It constitutes rank hypocrisy by the Liberals. They came in claiming to wash whiter than other brands. Now their defence is built on the fact that the other guys did it too.
I have chatted over cocktails with a number of members of this government. They are, for the most part, witty and interesting people.
But it’s not as if it’s an evening with Louis C.K. — and you can get decent seats to see him at Madison Square Garden next month for a hundred bucks.
People seeking favours from Liberal ministers will continue to pay for access until we have a government that appoints a watchdog that barks. My advice — don’t hold your breath.The source:http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberal-cash-for-access-events-arent-just-ugly-they-may-be-illegal
Comment:
"The End of Members of Parliament being Paid to Play
Back in the early 1990’s the Speaker of the House of Commons made a terrible mistake by allowing Members of Parliament to take money to cover the cost of their offices processing constituent’s immigration paperwork. This decision opened the door for exploitation by unscrupulous MP’s and their staffs.
Since the 1990’s, consultants with Asian clientele have paid to ensure that paid for Members of Parliament lobby for Canadian immigration quotas being dominated by Asians. Immigration statistics confirm that the consultants get value for their money.
Thankfully, after 20 years of Parliamentary corruption, Canadians are now showing concern that our legislators are being paid for access.
Canadians want to believe in diversity and fair play, not special status purchased through selective, orchestrated, expensive, very successful, and probably illegal political lobbying. “Paying to play” no longer passes the smell test.
Many Canadians feel that the immigration system is rigged against families and businesses from the large European community. They feel that Italians, Portuguese, Poles etc. become undocumented while the documents go to Asians who systemically finance a political lobbying system. The data backs up these concerns.
Many in our Italian, Portuguese, Polish and other communities feel frustrated with both the perception and reality of a double standard. Our Federal representative’s find time and money to lobby Minister McCallum to visit the Golden Temple in the Punjab. Our representatives find time and money to lobby Minister McCallum to go to the Chandigarh visa office . There, our Minister enquires about overseas parents, grandparents and university educated immigration applicants from the Punjab. These are applicants who have not yet proven their commitment to Canada. (The fact is that Canada has a dismal retention rate with Asian immigrants).The data backs up these concerns.
It is difficult for many Canadians to accept that our representatives can send Minister McCullum to commit visas to strangers in India but not to neighbors in Ontario.
Meanwhile, John McCallum wants to deport the tens of thousands of committed, non-Indian residents who are building the homes for the new strangers. Overseas consultants and their MP clients succeed where Canadian employers and families fail.
When considering quotas and diversity, we ask that our elected representatives consider the entire community, not justice based on paid access.
Ignoring these concerns, as with Brexit and Trump, could prove economically, politically and socially problematic. "
Richard Boraks, November 29 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment