Module 9: Ethics in Canada

Canadian lawmakers, including Government Ministers, ordinary Members of Parliament, and Senators, are all explicitly constrained from being involved in fraud, influence peddling, or breach of trust. The rules that constrain such behaviour have evolved over time because of perceived or actual abuses committed by Canadian lawmakers.

For example, in 1873 PM John A. Macdonald was embroiled in the Pacific Scandal, where his government was accused of taking donations in return for awarding a contract to the railway syndicate of Sir Hugh Allan. No one was charged or held criminally responsible for the Pacific Scandal, but it did force MacDonald from power, albeit only until re-election in 1878.

Canadian lawmakers, including Government Ministers, ordinary Members of Parliament, and Senators, are all explicitly constrained from being involved in fraud, influence peddling, or breach of trust. The rules that constrain such behaviour have evolved over time because of perceived or actual abuses committed by Canadian lawmakers.

Figure 9-3: Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AJohn_Wilson_Bengough_1877-09-08_Teaching_the_Polly-ticians_What_to_Say.jpg Permission: Public Domain.

For example, in 1873 PM John A. Macdonald was embroiled in the Pacific Scandal, where his government was accused of taking donations in return for awarding a contract to the railway syndicate of Sir Hugh Allan. No one was charged or held criminally responsible for the Pacific Scandal, but it did force MacDonald from power, albeit only until re-election in 1878.

Historically, there was less ethical accountability placed on public office holders. In the early days of Canadian confederation, holding public office was more akin to a part time job. This meant only those with sufficient means to support themselves could contemplate running for public office. It also meant that even those wielding the most power in government, prime ministers and cabinet ministers, would continue to sit as board of directors, to run their legal practices, and to manage their personal/family assets. Only when a clear conflict of interest arose would the issue be addressed. All of which would be unthinkable by today’s standards. However, as governing became more complex with the rise of the welfare state and increased ministerial responsibilities as well as influence, the importance of rules around ethics also increased. However, the contemporary rules on ethics for public office holders weren’t passed until the Conflict of Interest Act, 2006. Several attempts to establish rigorous protocols on ethics for public officials had been attempted prior to this but they either failed to be implemented or were watered down. This meant that most political scandals were not actually illegal or even the breach of official rules but rather about conduct that is perceived as unethical. Therefore, while few scandals have ended with office holders going to prison, they often do come at a political cost. In Canada’s contemporary history, the government’s of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Stephen Harper, and Justin Trudeau, have all experienced political scandals. This module will look at what corruption and ethics are, review some of the most important scandals of the Canadian Government, and look at the policies put in place by the Canadian Government to deal with them.

Accusations of corruption against public office holders often take one of the following forms: bribery, electoral fraud, embezzlement, kickbacks, conflict of interest, and political patronage. We will deal with each in turn before moving on to contemporary scandals in Canada.

Figure 9-4: Source: http://www.creative-commons-images.com/clipboard/bribery.html Permission: CC BY-SA 3.0 Courtesy of Nick Youngson.

Bribery is the most common form of government corruption. It most often comes in the form of a monetary payment exchanged for the use of a public office holder’s official powers but may also include the exchanging of favours. Bribery may be initiated by either party, the public office holder or the one offering the ‘gift’. Examples of bribery include any of the following actions in exchange for some form of compensation: withholding of duties that the official is already paid to do, expediting governmental processes, or providing a service to someone not entitled to it. In Canada, bribery carries a maximum possible sentence of 14 years for either the one offering or accepting a bribe. The previously mentioned, Pacific Scandal, is an example of bribery in which the Government of John A. Macdonald took campaign contributions in exchange for a promise of the railway contract. A more contemporary example of an accusation of bribery in Canadian politics includes the $90,000 cheque given to Mike Duffy by PM Harper’s Chief of Staff Nigel Wright. While Duffy was ultimately cleared of all charges, Judge Vaillancourt was very critical of the government’s role in providing the cheque.

Electoral fraud is any illegal action that interferes in the electoral process. Traditionally, it covers a range of activities, including stuffing the ballot box, bribing voters, the use of intimidation, and gerrymandering. While all of the above actions were considered routine in the past, as it was in most countries, they have largely been eliminated in Canada. The Commissioner of Canada Elections is tasked with ensuring the Canada Elections Act is enforced. Most contemporary investigations look at violations of party finance laws and illegal campaign contributions. Such violations are most often resolved through compliance agreements: a voluntary agreement between the Commissioner and the contracting party in which they agree to terms and conditions that the Commissioner considers necessary to ensure compliance with the Act. However, electoral fraud can result in jail time for offenders as was the case of Michael Sona in 2014, when he was convicted in the Robocalls Scandal, which involved accusations of voter suppression in Guelph, whereby voters received phone calls, purporting to be from Elections Canada, telling them their polling station had changed when it had not. This is an image of a rigged ballot box.

Figure 9-5: Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABallotstuffing.jpg Permission: Public Domain.

Figure 9-6: Peter MacKay Cyclone. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APeter_MacKay_CYCLONE.jpg Permission: CC BY 2.0 Courtesy of Benjamin J. DeLong.

Embezzlement is the theft of funds or misuse of services by the person to whom it had been entrusted. It becomes an issue of political corruption when the funds are taken by a public office holder for a non-government use. An egregious example of embezzlement includes the St John’s Canada Revenue Agency employee who embezzled almost $700,000 by generating fake tax refunds and having them sent to postal boxes. Other more common examples include taking unwarranted time off from work or the use of government property and services for personal use. For example, Conservative Defence Minister Peter MacKay was accused of misusing government resources in 2011 when he used a search and rescue helicopter to airlift him from a remote fishing area.

A kickback is an agreement between a public official and a person or group bidding on a government contract whereby a percentage of the fee paid is returned to the public official in return for granting the contract. For example, take a public servant who has the power to award a contract. Acme co and Beta co both bid on the contract. Acme co submits a lower bid, with a better product, on better terms. Beta co submits a higher bid, with a lower quality product, on worse terms. But Beta co offers to return to the decision maker 15% of the bid. If accepted, this is a kickback. In 2011, the Charbonneau Commission investigated the awarding of public contracts in the construction industry in Québec. Justice Charbonneau argued organized crime syndicates and the Hells Angels had permeated the construction industry, providing kickbacks for contracts and gaining access to public and private contracts, as well as worker’s pension funds. In the end, the Mayor of Laval Giles Vaillancourt stepped down, pled guilty to all charges, and was sentenced to 6 years in prison; the Mayor of Montreal, Gérald Tremblay resigned his position; the subsequent interim-Mayor of Montreal, Michael Applebaum resigned and was sentenced to one year in jail.

Figure 9-7: “Mayor Vaillancourt” Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GillesVaillancourt.jpg Permission: CC BY-SA 3.0 Courtesy of Martin C. Barry

“Mayor Tremblay” By US Mission Canada CC BY 2.0 via https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G%C3%A9rald_Tremblay_2011.jpg

Figure 9-9: “Interim-Mayor Applebaum” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMichael-Applebaum-Montreal-Mayor-2009.jpg Permission: CC BY 2.0 Courtesy of abdallahh.

One of the most common accusations against public officials is the charge of conflict of interest: a situation in which a prime minister, Cabinet minister, member of Parliament, or public servant has a private, personal, or economic interest sufficient to influence how he or she exercises public duties and responsibilities. It can be difficult to assess conflict of interest claims given the socio-demographic of the people involved. The political class have traditionally come from the wealthier class with diverse financial interests. Some conflicts of interest may explicitly cross legal lines but others, while technically legal, may generate perception issues within the general public that governmental decisions are not being made impartially or wholly in the public interest.

Figure 9-10: “Bill Morneau” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABill_Morneau_2015.jpg Permission: CC BY 2.0 Courtesy of By US Embassy Canada

An example of a contemporary conflict of interest claim are the 2017 accusations against Liberal Minister of Finance Bill Morneau. The position of Finance Minister is particularly susceptible to conflict of interest accusations given the influence they have over the form and function of the Canadian economy. That is why all ministers, and the finance minister in particular, are expected to put their financial assets in a blind trust. Minister Morneau was accused of not doing so, continuing to hold shares in his family’s company, Morneau Shepell and thus benefiting from proposed pension plan changes. Minister Morneau responded that he had met the requirements of the Ethics Commissioner and that there was no conflict of interest. However, given the perception of a conflict of interest, Morneau subsequently sold his shares and donated some of the profits to charity. However, the are still questions regarding the sale of shares by Morneau’s father just prior to the proposed tax changes and moreover, the opposition has called for Morneau’s resignation.

Political patronage refers to the awarding of contracts, employment, and other material benefits to individuals or groups on the basis of partisan support rather than merit. Political patronage is still prevalent in Canadian politics and is not necessarily against the law. There are examples that cross the line of acceptable practice, such as vote buying or other forms of bribery. More acceptable but still problematic is the use of pork barrel politics: the extension of political favours to whole regions or communities as an inducement for support. For example, many claimed the Harper Government targeted increased spending on conservative ridings either as a reward or to shore up weakening support. But most forms of political patronage continue to be a routine part of politics. For example, there are more than 3,000 political appointments made by the prime minister and his cabinet. These include Governor in Council appointments including the positions of president, chairperson, and board directors of crown corporations such as the CBC and Canada Post. Other important forms of political patronage include appointments to the Senate and the judiciary. Patronage positions have proven problematic for new party leaders when made by the previous leader before leaving office.

Figure 9-11: “Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Elliot_Trudeau-2.jpg Permission:  CC BY-SA 3.0 Courtesy of Chiloa derivative work: Jbarta

Figure 9-12: “Prime Minister John Turner” Source: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/John_Turner Permission: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

For example, Pierre Trudeau appointed 70 Liberals to Governor in Council positions, to which John Turner paid a political price. However, in response to the 33 patronage positions made by outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau has established more transparent guidelines for Governor in Council positions. They do not eliminate the possibility of political patronage but it does open the process to scrutiny. Some argue that political patronage may not be perceived as completely above board but, in the end, they argue it is a necessity as it holds political parties together and introduces stability into the political system. Others argue it pollutes the system, introducing corruption that will only fester and grow. However, most agree political patronage will continue to exist when politics, money, and interests intersect. Those with a more pessimistic view of human nature consider this to be inevitable. Those with a more positive view of human nature consider this something to be fought against.

Figure 9-13: “Sinclair Stevens” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sinclair_Stevens_photo_by_Djuradj_Vujcic.jpg Permission: CC BY 2.0 Courtesy of Djuradj Vujcic.

Before looking at the evolution of ethics rules for public officials, it is instructive to look at some of the more contemporary scandals in Canada. In 1987, there was the Sinclair Stevens scandal. Sinclair Stevens was the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in the Progressive Conservative Government of Brian Mulroney. Minister Sinclair was forced to resign in 1986 due to allegations of a conflict of interest. The heart of the allegations surrounds a decision by Minister Stevens to approve federal funds for auto parts maker Magna International while the company gave a 2.6 million dollar loan to a company owned by Steven’s family. The Parker Commission was asked to investigate the affair. It lasted eight months and was one of the first commissions to make extensive use of subpoenas, calling on 93 witnesses. The commission concluded that Stevens had 14 conflict of interest violations. However, in 2004 Justice O’Keefe overturned the Parker decision.  Parker argued O’Keefe had drafted his own definition of the term ‘conflict of interest’ since it hadn’t been clearly defined at the time. Parker argued that this constituted an over reach of O’Keefe’s authority. This issue of perceived wrongs versus legal wrongs would be a recurring problem in dealing with political scandals.

In 2004, the Sponsorship Scandal became one of the most definitive contemporary political events. In response to the near success of the Québec secession vote in 1995, Prime Minister Chrétien established a sponsorship program to promote federalism in Québec by advertising at community, cultural, and sporting events. Most of the actual work was contracted out by the Department of Public Works and Government Services. The program spent in excess of 40 million dollars a year until 2002. In 2002, the Globe and Mail broke the story that the government has paid 550,000$ from the sponsorship program to Groupaction Marketing Inc for a report that no one could find. The government asked Auditor General Sheila Fraser to investigate the government’s relationship with Groupaction. She found serious misgivings in the contracts with more than 100 million dollars paid with little to show for it. The case was subsequently referred to the RCMP.

Figure 9-14: “Alfonso Gagliano testifies at the Gomery Commission” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAlfonso_Gagliano_testifies_at_the_Gomery_Commission_for_the_Adscam_inquiry.jpg Permission: Public Domain. Courtesy of Quebecpress.

In 2004, then Prime Minister Paul Martin formed the Gomery Commission to investigate the accusations of mismanagement.  The commission lasted nearly a year and called on 172 witnesses, including Prime Minister Paul Martin. This was the first time in over a hundred years that a sitting prime minister testified before a public inquiry. This testimony revealed some disturbing practices. For example: invoices had been submitted for work that had not been done; companies had been asked to make contributions to the Federal Liberal Party and; companies had been asked to put Liberal workers on company payrolls. It was determined that the Québec wing of the Federal Liberal Party and top individuals in that wing had used the sponsorship program for kickbacks. Chretien was not implicated directly but was judged to bear some responsibility since the program was run out of his office. Martin was cleared of wrong doing but his minority Liberal Government lost the confidence of the house and was defeated in the ensuing election.

In 2007, the Conservative Party of Canada was involved in the ‘In and Out’ scandal which allowed the party to circumvent election finance laws. Elections Canada puts limits on campaign finance in order to facilitate a more level playing field between parties during elections. Elections Canada is also an important source of election finances, providing funding to parties on a per-vote basis as well as reimbursing campaign finances for any candidate that attains a minimum threshold of votes. In 2000, it was discovered that the Bloc Quebecois had found a way to inflate campaign spending in order to receive significantly higher refunds from Elections Canada. While the Bloc is the first party recognized for using the ‘In and Out’ process, the scandal is most often attributed to the Federal Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election. Spending at the national level had reached its 18.3-million-dollar spending limit. The party then transferred 1.3 million dollars to the 67 riding offices that had not reached their $80,000 limit. These 67 local ridings then returned the money to the party, nominally to purchase advertising for their ridings. However, the advertising in question was not for local ridings but was in fact used for national adverts. When the ridings submitted invoices to Elections Canada for reimbursement, it was noted that all the ridings had submitted invoices from the same company, Retail Media in Toronto. Yet when this was followed up, Retail Media had only invoiced the national party and stated it had no dealings with local constituency offices. In the end, Elections Canada refused to refund the party almost 780,000$. In 2011 four senior Conservative Party members were charged with deliberately exceeding the limitations set by election finance laws by 1.2 million dollars: Senator Doug Finley, campaign manager; Senator Irving Gerstein, fundraiser; Michael Geniron, executive director; Susan Kehoe, Chief Financial Officer. While only four people were charged, there were many more complicit in the scandal, including 67 candidates, 15 of whom were elected and 5 became members of Stephen Harper’s cabinet.

Figure 9-15: “Protests against election fraud in 2012” Source: https://flic.kr/p/bAZhU8 Permission: CC BY-SA 2.0 Courtesy of Peter Blanchard.

In the 2011 federal election, Elections Canada and the RCMP investigated allegations of voter suppression in Guelph Ontario, which was later dubbed the ‘robocalls scandal’. Under the Canada Elections Act, it is illegal to either impersonate Elections Canada or interfere with the right to vote. Being convicted of doing so carries a maximum penalty of up to a 10-year prison term. While the investigation focused on Guelph, there were similar reports of voter suppression in over 200 ridings and in every province. It was alleged that voters received calls falsely informing them that their polling station location had changed. While some of the calls were made by actual people, the majority were automated calls, hence the moniker ‘robocalls’. The investigations identified the use of a pre-paid cell phone bought with a pre-paid credit card registered to an obviously made up name, ‘Pierre Poutine’, with a fictional address. Pierre Poutine also used the automated call service 2call.ca to generate the robocalls. It was revealed that 7,760 call attempts were made to voters that had indicated they would not vote conservative. This indicates that there was a sophisticated disinformation campaign at work that used data collected by the Conservative Party to identify voters who likely would not be voting for them in order to suppress their vote. While the operation likely involved many more people and much more senior members of the Conservative Party, the investigation identified two staff members as being involved: Andrew Prescott who downloaded a list of telephone numbers from the Conservative Party database and Michael Sona who was the only person charged in the affair. Prescott was granted immunity for his cooperation in the investigation and Sona was charged with ‘willfully preventing or endeavoring to prevent an elector from voting in an election, an offence under the Canada Elections Act.’ Sona was sentenced to a nine-month prison term and 12 months probation.

Figure 9-16: “Mike Duffy” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mike_Duffy.jpg Permission: CC BY-SA 2.5 Courtesy of Ayelie.

In 2012, the Canadian Senate came under fire with the Canadian Senate expenses scandal. It is also known as the ‘Mike Duffy Affair’ due to Senator Duffy being the only person to go to court over the scandal. The scandal revolved around claims for travel and living expenses to which the Senators were not entitled. The most controversial claim was in regard to the ‘primary residence’ requirement of Senators. Each of the provinces and territories in Canada are allocated a set number of seats in the Senate. Therefore, Senators must own property in the region to which they are appointed and are expected to be ‘resident’ in that province or territory. This is part of the problem, since ‘resident’ is not defined in the Constitution. In line with being ‘resident’, some claimed the property they own in the province to which they were appointed as their ‘primary residence’. However, for some their actual primary residence was elsewhere; for example, it was argued Senator Duffy’s and Senator Harb’s primary residence was Ottawa not Cavendish PEI or Westmeath ONT respectively. This becomes an issue when Senators claim the accommodation and per diem expenses allowed when their primary residence is more than 100km from Ottawa. Others, like Senator Wallin, were accused of claiming travel expenses not directly associated with Senate business. In total, the Auditor General of Canada examined the expenses of all 116 current and former senators over a 2-year period. Thirty senators were flagged for having inappropriate expense claims and nine were identified as being of a sufficiently serious nature as to warrant a recommendation for RCMP investigation. Fourteen senators submitted their cases to Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie for binding arbitration. Three senators were charged but after the acquittal of Mike Duffy, the charges against Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau were dropped. The problem of inappropriate senate expense claims refocused attention on the perceived deficiencies of the Senate. However, the scandal became more complicated with Senator Duffy’s case and by the direct interference in the case by the PMO.

Figure 9-17: “Prime Minister Stephen Harper” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Harper_by_Remy_Steinegger.jpg Permission: CC BY-SA 2.0 Courtesy of World Economic Forum – Remy Steinegger.

Stephen Harper had appointed three of the most visible senators ensnared in the scandal: Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau. All three sat in the Conservative Caucus and threatened to be a major embarrassment to the Harper Government. Stephen Harper and his chief of staff Nigel Wright put pressure on the senate, on the senators, and demanded that Duffy repay 90,000$ for expense irregularities. In the end, Wright wrote a 90,000$ check to Duffy in order to try and make the scandal go away but this only made the optics of the case worse. Duffy subsequently faced 31 charges clustered in four categories: expenses claimed for his residence in PEI, expenses related to trips the crown claimed were personal or partisan, funds spent through Duffy’s company, and for the $90,000 cheque itself. While he was acquitted of all charges by Justice Vaillancourt, the judge roundly criticized the Harper government, arguing the “political, covert, relentless unfolding of events is mind-boggling and shocking”.

Figure 9-18: “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justin_Trudeau_June_13_2017.jpg Permission: CC BY 2.0 Courtesy of Women Deliver.

A more recent full-fledged scandal surrounds the decision of the Liberal government in June of 2020 to allow WE Charity to administer a program connecting post-secondary students with funded volunteer work. The program was meant to help students find work during the COVID-19 pandemic, and WE would have been given approximately 43 million dollars to administer it. However, questions arose surrounding the suitability of WE Charity in administering the program, as well as accusations of cronyism given close ties between the charity and the Trudeau family, as well as the Liberal Party.

Various members of the Trudeau family, including the Prime Minister, his mother, wife, and brother, had all been paid speakers at various WE Charity events. Federal finance minister Bill Morneau also had close ties with WE Charity, as one of his children was an employee. Morneau had also been on several overseas trips that WE Charity had paid for. Although Trudeau and Morneau both denied that their relationship with WE had influenced the decision to choose the organization to oversee the volunteer program, Morneau would eventually resign in August of 2020 from cabinet and parliament, with growing pressure from opposition parties and reports of tensions between him and the Prime Minister.

Scandals of this type are a particular form of a conflict of interest known as cronyism – that government decision makers will appoint their friends and associates to positions of power, or award lucrative government contracts to friends and associates, without proper regard for the qualifications or suitability of those people. The misuse of government funds to reward friends of the political party holding government has been a reoccurring issue in Canadian politics for many years.

Members of Parliament, including the prime minister, senators, and public servants are all subject to the Criminal Code, the Parliament of Canada Act and the rules of the House and Senate. For example, the Criminal Code clearly defines illegal activity such as bribery, either in the form of monetary benefit or in-kind favours; the Parliament of Canada Act forbids MPs from taking government contracts and from selling their services; the Standing Orders of the House of Commons prevent MPs from voting on any question they have a direct financial interest; Senate rules prevent any senator from voting or sitting on a committee to which they have a financial interest. However, as seen in the previous section, such rules do not explicitly cover all possible ethical dilemmas, nor perhaps, is that even possible. Yet, reformers have tried. The federal government as well as all provinces and territories have some form of statute in place to deal with ethics and conflict of interest.

Figure 9-19: “Allan MacEachen” Source:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAllan_MacEachen.jpg Permission: Public Domain. Courtesy of Arthur Roy.

At the federal level, Allan MacEachen, a Liberal MP and Deputy Prime Minister, tabled a Green Paper entitled Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest in 1973. However, it generated significant opposition in both houses. The Senate blocked the first attempt at passage. It was reintroduced in 1979 but parliament was dissolved before the bill reached second reading. Absent legislated rules and expectations were communicated to ministers by the prime minister, including: the expectation to use blind trusts; a prohibition on lobbying; a two-year prohibition on serving on the boards of directors of corporations they dealt with as ministers after their term; a one-year prohibition on either accepting jobs with companies they had dealt with as ministers or acting as a consultant for them. In 1984 the Starr-Sharp report argued two ethics officers should be appointed. The first, a counsellor, would inform ministers of their responsibilities vis-à-vis the law and ethics code. The second, a commissioner, would be vigilant for possible conflicts of interest and investigate them once identified. However, the report was not acted on.

Figure 9-20: “Prime Minister Brian Mulroney” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mulroney_2011.JPGPermission: CC BY 2.0 Courtesy of Miller Center.

In 1985, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney introduced new conflict of interest guidelines, including a prohibition of nepotism. However, the guidelines were undermined in trying to balance the interests of the public with the private interests of ministers. This arguably allowed the 1987 Sinclair Stevens scandal, introduced earlier, to occur. In response, the Mulroney Government attempted to introduce conflict of interest legislation in 1988, Bill C-114, but it died when parliament was dissolved. The Mulroney Government tried again in 1993 with Bill C-43, but it too died when the 34^th Parliament was dissolved. 

An important step forward in addressing ethics issues in Canada came with the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien when they won the 1993 election. Prime Minister Chretien hired Mitchell Sharp, of the Starr-Sharp Report, to act as an ethics advisor. The advisor would interview prospective cabinet members prior to appointment and advise them of their ethical responsibilities if selected. Chretien also introduced the 1994 ‘ethics package’ that was applicable to members of cabinet, parliamentary secretaries, minister’s staff, and senior officials in the public service. The package established rules for lobbyists and sought to prevent both real and publicly perceived conflicts of interest. All public employees were to report to the ethics counsellor and detail their assets, liabilities, and outside activities. The counsellor would then advise them on how to best comply with the ethics guidelines. Importantly, public office holders were required to divest ‘controllable’ assets such as publicly traded securities that could be affected by government decision making. Divesting means either selling the assets, putting such controllable assets into a blind trust, or creating a blind management agreement whereby the officeholder would be prevented from making any decisions on the management of their assets. Further under Chretien’s leadership, a joint committee of the 36^th parliament argued for a comprehensive ethics code binding on both senators and MPs. However, the recommendation went nowhere as there was insufficient support amongst senators and MPs to pass legislation if introduced. The Chretien ethics package was a significant step forward but were still problematic. They were ad hoc in nature, unique to each prime minister, and could change at their discretion. They were only passive measures, having an advising role but no investigative role. Finally, the role of the ethics advisor was less than transparent, reporting only to the prime minister and only in private. Jean Chretien’s successor, Paul Martin, added to the ethics code in 2003 and 2004; perhaps being influenced by that 2002 Globe and Mail story that would lead to the Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. These changes included rules on the use of government aircraft, on gifts over 1000$, and a requirement for the approval of the ethics commissioner to receive gifts, hospitality, or benefits. Finally, Martin would formally create the positions of an ethics commissioner and a senate ethics officer. Finally, starting in the 38^th parliament, MPs would be required to disclose the assets, liabilities, and outside income of themselves, their spouses, and dependent children. However, it wasn’t until 2006 that a legislative response came together in the Federal Accountability Act.

Figure 9-21: “Prime Minister Jean Chretien” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AJean_Chr%C3%A9tien_2010.jpgPermission: CC BY 2.0 Courtesy of Michael Ignatieff.

Figure 9-22: “Prime Minister Paul Martin” Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_martin_2004.jpg Permission: CC BY-SA 2.0 Courtesy of World Economic Forum.

Coming on the heels of the Sponsorship Scandal, ethical issues played an important role in the 2006 election. Stephen Harper honed this ethical argument to chip away at the legitimacy of the Liberal policies, actions, and responses. On winning a minority government, one of his government’s first legislative initiatives was Bill C-2 Federal Accountability Act. This was one of Harper’s large omnibus bills: a proposed law that compiles together a variety of topics to be voted on together. Bill C-2 included: new rules for political donations; a five-year lobbying ban for former ministers, their aides, and senior public servants; it also created a commissioner of lobbying and amended the Lobbyists Registration Act; enhanced the power of the auditor general and; created a new parliamentary budget officer and public-sector integrity commissioner. The Federal Accountability Act is significant to the question of political ethics in Canada in several ways. It created the first conflict of interest law opposed to ‘guidelines’ and the first regime to govern ethical conduct of public officeholders. The legislation included all the elements of the Code for Public Office Holders but also included prohibitions against holding personal trusts and having private interests which they could benefit from. Subsequently, public office holders would have to either sell their assets or put them in a fully blind trust.  Also important was the creation of the commissioner to oversee both, with the powers to advise, investigate, and impose fines for ethical breaches. Moreover, the commissioner cannot be overruled by the prime minister. However, one important flaw of the Federal Accountability Act is that it does not cover the senate, leaving its regulation to the senate ethics officer.

Political issues are inherently connected to issues of power, corruption, and ethics. By definition, the government has a unique access to power which lead to questions of corruption. Legislative power can be used to create biased laws for self-interested reasons. Executive power can lead to discrimination in the enforcement of such legislation. Judicial power can question the legitimacy of the state if perceived as biased or unjust. Moreover, the government’s power and authority can lead to bribery, electoral fraud, embezzlement, kickbacks, conflict of interest, or political patronage. While the Canadian public has a generally favourable view of the government, it has still experienced significant ethical scandals, from the Pacific Scandal of John A. Macdonald to the WE Charity scandal of Justin Trudeau. In response, there have been significant effort and resistance to putting ethical guidelines and legislation in place. However, it wasn’t until 2006 that comprehensive legislation was put into place by the Harper Government, including a commissioner of conflict of interest and ethics. Despite the new commissioner, both the governments of Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau have experienced significant scandals. It will have to be seen whether such scandals were exposed by this legislation through the work of the ethics commissioner and therefore demonstrates their utility or whether these scandals happened despite them and therefore demonstrates the futility of trying to legislate ethical behaviour.