Public Values

Nigel Wright's position in PMO made possible by huge loophole in ethics rules

Conflict of Interest Act prevents public from filing complaints.

Conflict of Interest Act prevents public from filing complaints - Duff Duff Conacher

How is it that a senior executive who stills own shares in a huge conglomerate corporation could serve as Chief of Staff in the Prime Minister's office and take part in policy decisions on many issues that affect the corporation?

Simple. Loopholes in the federal government's ethics law, the Conflict of Interest Act, allows Cabinet ministers, their staff, appointees and senior government officials to take part in any decision, even if they or their family members or friends have a personal financial interest in the decision, as long as the decision applies generally to a broad group of people or organizations.

This loophole was added to the ethics law by Paul Martin in his first days as Prime Minister in December 2003. Before making this change, the law prohibited Cabinet ministers and the other senior officials from being in an apparent conflict of interest (a rule that many violated back to 1986 when the rules were first enacted).

However, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his lapdog Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson, had all ignored the "apparent conflict" standard and allowed several officials to take part in general application decisions even when they had a financial interest in the decision.

Because Mr. Wilson was a political adviser, not a quasi-judicial decision-maker, his rulings letting Cabinet ministers and others off the hook for alleged apparent conflicts of interest could not be challenged in court.

Mr. Martin changed the rules as the Ethics Counsellor position was changing into the Ethics Commissioner position, and the Commissioner could be challenged in court because he was a quasi-judicial decision-maker. Because of his rule change, Mr. Martin could sell his company to his sons and still be involved in decisions "of general application" that affected the company.

Of course, Mr. Martin did not have to worry about new Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro ruling against him because Mr. Shapiro was picked by Martin and continued Mr. Wilson's well-established record as a lapdog who couldn't recognize a conflict of interest if it slapped him in the face.

However, Mr. Martin had to worry about someone filing a complaint with Shapiro against him, and then challenging Shapiro's ruling in court. In fact, Democracy Watch did challenge several of Shapiro's rulings in court, but then Shapiro resigned in spring 2007 which nixed the cases.

The Harper Conservatives promised in their 2006 election platform to "Close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests". But they broke that promise, and they also put a measure in the Conflict of Interest Act that prevents the public from filing complaints with the Ethics Commissioner that the Commissioner is required to investigate (only MPs and senators can force an investigation).

In summer 2007, the Conservatives hand-picked their own Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, and also changed the law to prohibit anyone from challenging Commissioner Dawson's rulings in court for errors of fact or law. As a result, she has all the powers and immunity of an actual ethics czar.

Unfortunately, Commissioner Dawson has continued the lapdog tradition, so far letting more than 20 Conservative Cabinet ministers and MPs off the hook for very questionable reasons, even though they were involved in very questionable activities, likely in part because none of her rulings can be challenged in court.

However, because of the loopholes in the law, Commissioner Dawson has no choice but to allow Nigel Wright to take part in decisions "of general application" that affect his own, and Onex's, financial interests.

If you think about it, you quickly realize that 99.9 percent of decisions made by Cabinet ministers, their staff, appointees and senior government officials are decisions "of general application". Every law, regulation, tax, subsidy and government program is of general application, applying not just to one person or corporation but to many of them.

As a result, any Cabinet minister or senior official can own shares in any corporation and take part in decisions changing any rule that affects that company, as long as it is a general rule.

In other words, the only thing the Conflict of Interest Act prohibits is taking part in decisions about handing a contract to a specific person or company. If we want government decisions that are in the public interest, the apparent conflict of interest rule must be put back in the federal ethics law to ensure that policy-makers are prohibited from making decisions in which they have an opportunity to further their own and their associates' personal financial interests.

Duff Conacher is the Coordinator of Democracy Watch, Canada's leading democratic reform organization.

Links and sources
  Democracy Watch

Posted: November 05, 2010


Public Values ( is a project of the Golden Lake Institute and the online publication

Public Values
Donate to
Health care
Public services
Natural resources
Front lines
Voices of privatization
Feedback and dialogue
About Us
What is framing?
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Updated frequently
To view photo captions, run your mouse over the photo
Bookmark and Share

© Golden Lake Institute/, 2007-11 owns copyright on all staff-written articles.
We encourage others to freely distribute material from this website but, without explicit permission,
Web publishers may only use short excerpts that also include credit to us and a reference to our site for the full article.
This site is managed by the Golden Lake InstituteVisit Golden Lake Institute Website and Straight Goods NewsVisit Straight Goods News Website
For comments or suggestions, please contact the Editor
For technical issues, please contact the Webmaster