FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE › en › publications › Documents... · 062005-02E. THE SGRO INQUIRY...

FORIMMEDIATERELEASE Ottawa,June21,2005PRESSRELEASE

THESGROINQUIRY

OnNovember222004,IreceivedarequestfromMs.DianeAblonczy,MemberforCalgary-NoseHillforanexaminationintovariousissuesrelatedtotheconductoftheformerMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration,theHonorableJudySgro.OnDecember14,IreceivedafurtherrequestfromMs.Ablonczy,onewhichwidenedthescopeoftheoriginalinquirytoincludethirteenseparateallegations.Today,sixmonthslater,Iamissuingmyreport.

Inthisparticularinquiry,therewasconsiderabledisagreementoverthefacts.Asaresult,Ifounditnecessarytobothgatherinformationthroughsubpoenafromfortyindividualsandexaminethousandsofdocumentsandemailrecords,primarilyfromtheDepartmentofCitizenshipandImmigration.

TheReportprovidesabriefreferencetothelegislativemandateoftheEthicsCommissioner,describesinsomedetailtheprocessoftheInquiryaswellasbothitsparticularcontextanditsassociatedcosts.TheReport’sappendicesaddsuchbackgroundinformationas(i)theinitiallettersfromMs.DianeAblonczy,MP,(ii)alistingoftheindividualsinterviewedandparticulardocumentsexamined,(iii)areportcommissionedfromRDMConsulting(i.e.RobertMarleau,formerClerkoftheHouseofCommons)withrespecttomattersofparliamentaryprivilegeandthemandateoftheEthicsCommissioner,and(iv)theletterwritteninMaytotheHonorableJudySgro,MPastabledintheHouseofCommonsonMay10,inresponsetoherrequestforconfidentialadvice.

Finally,theReportprovidesmyfindingsandconclusionstothoseofthethirteenallegationsthatcanbeconsideredwithinmylegislativemandate.

TheReportisbeingreleasedinelectronicformandisavailableimmediatelyonmywebsiteatwww.parl.gc.ca/oec-bce.Inaddition,alimitednumberofprintedcopieswillbemadeavailabletodaytoparliamentariansandthemediafromtheparliamentarydistributioncenters.Finally,additionalprintedcopieswillbemadeavailablefrommyOfficelaterthisweek.Iwillnotconductanyinterviewswith,ormakeanyfurthercommentstothemedia.

BernardJ.Shapiro

-30-

Office of the Ethics Commissioner – Parliament of Canada – Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6Telephone: 613-995-0721 – Fax: 613-995-7308 – Web: http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec-bce

Office of the Ethics Commissioner

Bureau ducommissaire à l’éthique

THE SGRO INQUIRYMANY SHADES OF GREY

June 200�

Office of the Ethics CommissionerBureau du commissaire à l’éthique

BERNARD J. SHAPIROETHICS COMMISSIONER

THE SGRO INQUIRYMANY SHADES OF GREY

June 200�

Office of the Ethics CommissionerBureau du commissaire à l’éthique

BERNARD J. SHAPIROETHICS COMMISSIONER

Thispublicationisavailableuponrequestinmultipleformats.

Foradditionalcopiesofthispublication,pleasecontact:

OfficeoftheEthicsCommissionerParliamentofCanada66SlaterStreet,22ndFloorOttawa,OntarioK1A0A6

Telephone:(613)995-0721Fax:(613)995-7308Email:[email protected]

ThispublicationisalsoavailableelectronicallyontheWorldWideWebatthefollowingaddress:http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec-bce

PermissiontoReproduceExceptasotherwisespecificallynoted,theinformationinthispublicationmaybereproduced,inpartorinwholeandbyanymeans,withoutchargeorfurtherpermissionfromtheOfficeoftheEthicsCommissioner,providedthatduediligenceisexercisedinensuringtheaccuracyoftheinformationreproduced;thattheOfficeoftheEthicsCommissionerisidentifiedasthesourceinstitution;andthatthereproductionisnotrepresentedasanofficialversionoftheinformationreproduced,norashavingbeenmadeinaffiliationwith,orwiththeendorsementof,theOfficeoftheEthicsCommissioner.

Forpermissiontoreproducetheinformationinthispublicationforcommercialredistribution,pleaseemail:[email protected]

ISBN0-9738513-0-9062005-02E

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER �

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 5

(i) LegislativeBackground–OfficeoftheEthicsCommissioner 5(ii) TheSgroInquiry 5

THEPROCESS 6

THECOSTS 7

THECONTExT 8

THEFINDINGS 9

(i) PreliminaryComment 9(ii) Allegations:ParliamentaryPrivilege 9(iii) Allegations:OtherAgencies 10(iv) Allegations:SpecialCases 11(v) Allegations:Ethics 12

SUMMARYSTATEMENTS 20

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER ��

APPENDICES

I BillC-4:Selectedsections

II November20,2004letterfromMsD.Ablonczy,MP

III December14,2004letterfromMsD.Ablonczy,MP

IV RDMConsultingReport

V (a) Individualsinterviewedunderoath (b) Materialsexaminedundersubpoena

VI Investigationexpensereport

VII AnalysisofrelatedQuestionPeriodissues,November15toDecember14,2004

VIII Statisticsonmaterialexamined

Ix May2,2005lettertotheHonourableJudySgro,MPastabledintheHouseofCommonsonMay10,inresponsetoherrequestforconfidentialadvice.

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY


INTRODUCTION

(i)LegislativeBackground–OfficeoftheEthicsCommissionerTheOfficeoftheEthicsCommissionerwascreatedthroughtheadoptionbyParliamentofBillC-4,An Act to Amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in Consequence.ThebillwasassentedtoonMarch31,2004,becomingChapter7oftheStatutesofCanada,2004.

Regardlessofpublicperception,themandateorauthorityoftheEthicsCommissionerdoesnotextendtoallareasofethicalbehaviour:theEthicsCommissionercannotbeconsideredageneralombudspersonwiththeauthoritytorespondtocitizenswhoaredissatisfiedwiththeirparticularexperiencewithaparliamentarian,ministerorpublicofficeholder,orwithafederalgovernmentdepartmentoragency.TheparticularresponsibilityoftheEthicsCommissionerislimitedprimarilytotheadministrationoftheconflictofinterestcodesthatapply(i)tomembersoftheHouseofCommons,and(ii)topublicofficeholders(i.e.ministers,deputyministers,ministersofstate,parliamentarysecretariesandotherGovernor-in-Councilappointees).

Inaddition,withrespecttopublicofficeholders,themandateoftheEthicsCommissionerincludesexaminingtheconductofaministeroftheCrown,aministerofstateoraparliamentarysecretary,inresponsetoarequestfromamemberoftheSenateortheHouseofCommons.Thelegislationalsoprovidesthat,incarryingoutsuchanexaminationorinquiry,theEthicsCommissionercansummonwitnessesbothtogivetestimonyunderoathandtoproduceanydocumentsdeemednecessary.TherelevantsectionsofChapter7oftheStatutesofCanada,2004areattachedasAppendixItothisreport.

Asthisreportwasbeingpreparedforprinting,thematterastowhethertherewasacontradictionbetweentwosectionsoftheParliament of Canada Actarose.Thequestionwaswhetheraparticularsectionrequiringconfidentialitywithrespecttodocumentsproducedand/orevidencetakenunderoathpursuanttosection72.1wasconsistentwithsection72.08(4)requiringtheEthicsCommissionerto“setoutthefacts”alongwithhisanalysisinhisfinalreport.

Legaladvicewassoughtfromanumberofsources,andaftercarefulconsiderationofthisadvice,Iamsatisfiedthatnotusingtheinformationgatheredundersection72.1inpreparingthisreportwould,inmyview,defeattheintentandpurposeofthelegislation.

(ii)TheSgroInquiryOnNovember15,2004,I,asEthicsCommissioner,receivedaletterfromtheHonourableJudySgro,thenMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration,askingforconfidentialadvice,asprovidedforinsection72.07(c)oftheParliament of Canada Act.Thatsameday,theMinister’sParliamentarySecretaryinformedtheHouseofCommonsduringQuestionPeriodthattheMinisterhadrequestedadvicefromtheEthicsCommissioner.Subsequently,theMinistermadeacommitmenttomaketheadvicereceivedavailabletothepublic,thuseffectivelyputtingasideitsconfidentialnature.

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER�

Oneweeklater,onNovember22,2004,IreceivedaletterfromtheMemberofParliamentforCalgary-NoseHill,theHonourableDianeAblonczy,requestingthatIinquireinto:

“…whethertheMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration,JudySgro,hasfullyobservedtherules establishedbythePrimeMinisterforMinistersoftheCrownassetoutintheConflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders.”

Itwasthisletter,acopyofwhichisattachedasAppendixII,whichinitiatedtheinquiryofwhichthisreportistheresult.

Severalweekslater,onDecember14,2004,IreceivedasecondletterfromMsAblonczy(AppendixIII)askingthatadditionalmattersbeexamined.SincetheissuesraisedinthesecondletterwerecloselyrelatedtotheinquiryalreadyunderwayinresponsetoMsAblonczy’sfirstletter,Idecidedthat,ratherthancreatingasecondinquiry,thenewrequestwouldbeincorporatedintoasinglebutbroaderexamination.

THE PROCESS

Inrecentyears,themajorityoftheconflictofinterestallegationsthathaveemergedinthevariousprovincesofCanadahavebegunwith“agreedupon”facts,andthetaskoftheethicsofficerhasbeentoassesstheextenttowhichthesefactsindicatedthatanindividualwasorwasnotincompliancewiththerelevantcodeorlegislation.Inthiscase,however,itwasimmediatelyobviousthattheallegationscontainedintheAblonczylettersrelatedtofactsthatwouldthemselvesprobablybeindispute.Astherewereinsufficientstaffresourcesinmyofficeatthetimetheserequestswerereceivedtoconductthefact-findingexercisethatwouldbenecessary,inmycapacityasEthicsCommissionerIcontractedwithcounselsDavidW.ScottandLisaMicucciofthelawfirmBordenLadnerGervaisLLPtoconductthefact-findingstageoftheinquiry.Inaddition,IcontractedwithRDMConsulting(RobertD.Marleau)toadvisemeontheextenttowhichcertainoftheallegationsmadecouldbeunderstoodasproperlywithinthejurisdictionoftheEthicsCommissioner.

ThereportfromRDMConsultingwasreceivedinmid-January2005anditisattachedasAppendixIVtothisreport.TheBordenLadnerGervaisLLPreporttooksomewhatlonger.Thelawyersfromthisfirminterviewed,underoath,fortyindividuals(theirnamesarelistedinAppendixV)andtheyreceived,throughsubpoena,severalsetsofdocuments.Theirmainfact-findingreportwas,however,receivedonFebruary18,2005,alongwiththetranscriptionsoftheevidencetakenunderoath.Onthebasisofthismaterial,furtherandveryextensiveanalyseswereconductedbymyoffice,including(i)theissuanceofasmallnumberofadditionalsubpoenastoselectedindividuals(theirnamesarealsolistedinAppendixV),(ii)theexaminationofnumerousdocumentsfromCitizenshipandImmigrationCanada,and(iii)thee-mailcorrespondenceofparticularmembersoftheformerMinister’sstaff.ThescopeandnumbersofthesematerialsareoutlinedinAppendixVIII.

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY


Inaddition,giventhecentralnatureoftherolestheyplayedintheeventsbeingexamined(and,therefore,thevaluewhichIattachedtotheirsworntestimony),aswellastheimportanceofassessingtheircredibility,IpersonallyinterviewedonaninformalbasistheHonourableJudySgro,thenowformerMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration,aswellasMsKatherineAbbott,thedesignatedliaisonbetweentheMinisterandthedepartmentduringthefederalelectioncampaigninMay-June,2004,andMrIhorWons,aseniorpolicyadvisortotheMinister(andlaterheractingChiefofStaff),whowasonaleaveofabsenceduringthecampaignleadinguptothefederalelectiononJune28,2004.Laterintheinquiry,Ialsore-examined,underoath,MsKatherineAbbott,MrLeighLampertandMrIanLaird,allformerlyoftheMinister’sstaff.MrHarjitSinghrefusedtobeinterviewed.Allotherparticipantswereverycooperative.

Inaddition,allindividualsnamedinthisreportoraboutwhomanyobservationwasmadeintermsoftheirconductrelatingtotheallegationsmadeagainsttheformerMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigrationwereprovidedwithanopportunitytorespondtoexcerptsofthecommentsaboutthemcontainedinthereport’spenultimatedraft.

Initially,MsSgrohadagreedthatthisreportwoulddealbothwiththeconfidentialadviceshehadinitiallyrequestedandwiththeallegationsmadebyMsAblonczy.MsSgrolaterchangedhermindandaskedifIwoulddealwithherletteronaseparatebasis.Icompliedwiththisrequest,andmyletter,limitedassherequestedinitiallytothematterofMsAlinaBalaican,wasdeliveredtoheronMay2.MylettertoMsSgrowasconfidential,butsinceshesubsequentlymadeitpublic,itisincludedinthisreportasAppendixIx.

Inaddition,MsSgrowasprovidedwithanopportunitytoconsiderthefactsmaterialandrelevanttotheallegationsmadeandwithanopportunitytorespondtothem.Finally,againasrequiredbytheAct,PrimeMinisterPaulMartin,theMemberforCalgary-NoseHill,MsDianeAblonczy,andtheMemberforYorkWest,MsJudySgro,wereprovidedwithacopyofthisreportatthesametimeasitwasreleasedtothepublic.

Copiesofthereportareavailabletomembersofthemediaandallparliamentarians,amongothers.AlimitednumberofcopiesoftheprintedreportareavailablefromtheOfficeoftheEthicsCommissioner,andthereportispostedonmyWebsite,at.

THE COSTS

Thereweresubstantialcostsinvolvedinconductingthisinquiry.AsidefromthecostsrepresentedinthetimeandeffortinvestedbythestaffoftheOfficeoftheEthicsCommissionerandotheroffices(primarilyCitizenshipandImmigrationCanada),thereweresubstantialout-of-pocketcoststhatarosefromthecontractswithBordenLadnerGervaisLLPand,onamuchsmallerscale,withRDMConsulting.Inaddition,therewerecostsassociatedwith(a)thespeciallegaladviceneededwithrespecttotheinterpretationoftheParliament of Canada Actand(b)thepublicationofthefinalreport,includingeditingandprinting.

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER�

AllofthesecostshavebeenorwillbeabsorbedwithinthebudgetoftheOfficeoftheEthicsCommis-sioner,butforthegeneralinterestofreadersofthereport,theyarelistedinAppendixVI.

THE CONTEXT

IncomingtomyfindingswithrespecttotheallegationsmadebyMsAblonczy,IhavereliedalmostentirelyonthesworntestimonyofthoseinterviewedunderoathandthedocumentsproducedbyCitizenshipandImmigrationCanadaandMsSgro’soffice.Thesworntestimonywasnot,however,alwaysconsistentorclear.Forexample,theclaimsmadebyonewitnessweresometimescontradictedbythoseofanother.Insuchcases,Ihavereliedonadditionalfactors,suchasmyjudgmentaboutthecredibilityofaparticularwitness,aswellastheapparentselectivityofhisorhermemory.

Consideringthecontextinwhichtheeventstookplacewasalsohelpful,Ibelieve,inunderstanding(thoughnot,ofcourse,excusing)theeventsthemselves.Forgeneralcontextualinterest,theallegationsmadeinthiscaserelateprimarilytoeventsthattookplaceinMayandJune2004,theperiodofthemostrecentfederalelection.Electionperiodsarenotoriouslyhecticforallthoseinvolved,buttheypresentparticularchallengestoministers,especiallynewministers,whomustnotonlypresentthemselvesascandidatesintheirconstituency,butalsocarryouttheirdepartmentalresponsibilitieswhileatthesametimekeepingcampaignandgovernmentbusinessstrictlyseparate.Allsittingministersseekingre-electionmustfindwaystocopewiththischallenge.

Asanexampleofwhatcanhappen,MsSgro,thethenMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration,apparentlybeganthecampaignbymakingitcleartoherstaffthat(a)itwasparticularlyimportantduringthisperiodtoavoideventheappearanceofpoliticalpartisanshipwithrespecttoherministerialresponsibilities(includingtheexerciseofherdiscretioninapprovingTemporaryResidenceandWorkPermits(TRPs)),and(b)asaconsequence,sheintendedtolimittheuseofherdiscretionarypowers.Asthecampaignprogressed,therewas,atleastfromthepointofviewofseveralontheMinister’sstaff,someslippageintherigourwithwhichtheseobjectiveswerepursued.

OfadditionalinterestaretwocontextualmatterspertainingparticularlytoMsSgro.First,thethenMinisterwasillduringthecampaign,andshewasnot,therefore,abletobeas“present”asusualeitherasacandidateorasMinister,duringthecampaignperiod.Second,forreasonsthatIhavebeenunabletoclarifyfully,therewereserioustensionsamongthemembersoftheMinister’sstaff.Itappears–theevidenceisnotentirelyclear–thatthereweretwo“camps”:staffperceivedtobeassociatedwithIanLaird,thenChiefofStafftotheMinister,andthosewhoweremorecloselyidentifiedwithIhorWons,oneoftheMinister’spolicyadvisors,whowasonaleaveofabsenceduringtheelectioncampaignitself.Thesetensionscertainlypre-datedthecampaign,buttheirconsequenceduringthecampaignwasastaffdividedandnotinclined,therefore,tobeeitherascooperativewitheachotherorashelpfultoandcarefuloftheMinisterastheymightotherwisehavebeen.Thedecisionmadefollowingthecampaigntodismissvirtuallytheentirestaffspeaksvolumesastowhatmusthavebeenoccurringinthepreviousweeksandmonths.

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY


THE FINDINGS

(i)PreliminarycommentThissectionofthereportdealswitheachoftheallegationsmadeinMsAblonczy’slettersofNovember20(AppendixII)andDecember14(AppendixIII).Although,asindicatedabove,thesefindingsarebasedalmostentirelyonthesworntestimony,Ihavemadenoefforttoincludeallofthetestimonyinwhatfollowsbelow.Rather,Ihaveattemptedtosummarizeitandcitespecificallyonlythoseindividualswhoseinvolvementwithorwhoseconnectiontotheallegationsis,frommyperspective,central.

Asoutlinedintheintroductiontothisreport,therearelimitstothelegislativeauthorityoftheEthicsCommissioner.ItiswithinthiscontextthatIhavearrangedtheallegationsasfollows:(i)theallegationswhicharemattersofparliamentaryprivilegeratherthanmattersfortheEthicsCommissioner,(ii)theallegationswhichshould,inmyview,bereferredtootheragencies,(iii)twoallegationsthatseemtonotquite“belong”anywherespecific,buttowhichIhaveattemptedabriefresponse,and,finally,(iv)theallegationsappropriateforexaminationbytheEthicsCommissioner.

(ii)Allegations:ParliamentaryPrivilegeAsoutlinedintheRDMConsultingReport(AppendixIV),parliamentaryprivilegereferstotherightsandimmunitiesnecessaryforalegislatureanditsmemberstofunctionandcarryouttheirdutiesandresponsibilities.ThisprivilegeisdistinctlydifferentfromthejurisdictionconferredontheEthicsCommissionerundertheParliament of Canada Act,toconductanexaminationintoanallegationthataminister,ministerofstateorparliamentarysecretaryhasnotobservedtheethicalprinciples,rulesandobligationsestablishedbythePrimeMinister.Moreover,incasesinvolvingamatterofparliamentaryprivilege,themattershould,indeedmust,bedealtwithbytheHouseofCommonsitself.

TherewerethreeallegationsinMsAblonczy’sletterofDecember14,2004relatingtomattersofparliamentaryprivilegeand,althoughIhavemadeabriefcommentoneachofthem,anyfullerresponsemust,Ibelieve,bepursuedbytheHouseofCommonsitself.Thethreeallegationsare:

A. That the Minister’s staff said or implied that she would not look favourably on immigration requests that certain MPs might make on behalf of their constituents.

B. That there was a contradiction between the Minister’s document indicating that there was no record of Temporary Residence Permits (TRPs) by riding and her apparent knowledge of such requests.

C. That the Minister had misled the House by directly stating and clearly implying that she requested a full inquiry by the Office of the Ethics Commissioner of all allegations relating to questionable activities by herself and her staff, whereas the Office of the Ethics Commissioner has stated that the Minister’s request was only for confidential advice regarding the issuing of a Minister’s TRP to Alina Balaican.

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER10

Allegation“A”implies,ofcourse,thatanMP’sofficewascontactedasaconsequenceofquestionsraisedduringQuestionPeriod,andthatthecontactresultedinsomeformofintimidationbecauseofthemannerinwhichamemberwasdischarginghisorherduties.IfthereisadesiretopursuethisallegationaboutintimidationofMPs(itmight,ofcourse,havebeenanhonestmisunderstandingbetweenstaffmembers),itcanbedealtwithappropriately,notbytheEthicsCommissionerasamatterofconflictofinterest,butbytheHouseofCommonsasamatterofcontempt.

Allegation“B”addresseswhatwasperceivedasacontradictionbetweenananswergiveninQuestionPeriodandthecontentofadocumenttabledintheHouse.TheallegationreferstotwoproceedingsoftheHouseofCommons,anditdoesnot,therefore,fallwithinthejurisdictionoftheEthicsCommissioner.ThisisamatterthatshouldbedealtwithexclusivelybytheHouse,followingarulingbytheSpeaker.

Iwouldliketoadd,however,thatthecontradictionmaybemoreapparentthanreal.TheMinistermay,infact,rememberspecificcaseswithouthavingthempermanentlyfiledinaspecificway.Inaddition,theorganizationoftemporaryfiles,ascasesarebeingconsidered,maybequitedifferentfromhowtheinformationisfiledorarchivedatalaterdate.

Finally,withrespecttoallegation“C”,althoughtheMinister’srequestwasforconfidentialadvice,and,inthiscontext,myOfficehasnotmadetheMinister’srequestpublic,theMinister’sParliamentarySecretarymadethematterpubliconNovember15byinformingtheHouseofCommonsoftheMinister’sreferraltomeonthatissue(seeHouse of Commons Debates,pp.1328-29).Ontheotherhand,duringtheDecember8,2004meetingoftheHouseofCommonsCommitteeonAccesstoInformation,PrivacyandEthics,IdidindicateinresponsetoaquestionputtomebyMPRussHiebertthattheMinisterhadnotupdatedherNovember15requestforadvicefrommyOffice,arequestwhichwaslimitedtothecaseofMsBalaican.ThiswasaninadvertenterroronmypartasconfidentialityshouldhavebeenmaintainedunlesstheMinisterherselfchosetoactdifferently.Withrespecttothisparticularallegation,myOffice’sanalysisoftheevolutionoftherelatedissuesraisedduringQuestionPeriodintheHouse,aswellasthelineofresponses,isincludedinAppendixVII.Itshouldbenotedthat,bytablingmyresponsetoherinitialrequestforconfidentialadvice,MsSgrohas,infact,providedtheHousewiththerelevantmaterial.

Withrespecttothemainissue,misleadingtheHouseofCommons,onlytheHouseofCommonsiscompetenttodealwiththematter,andthereisaprocedureavailabletomembersofParliamentfordealingwiththisandothersimilarissues.

(iii)Allegations:OtherAgenciesInadditiontotheallegationsthatIbelieverelatetoparliamentaryprivilegeratherthantothemandateoftheEthicsCommissioner,thereweretwoadditionalallegationsthatseemedtofallneitherwithinthejurisdictionoftheEthicsCommissionernorthatoftheHouseofCommonsitself.Thesetwoallegationsare:

D. That the Minister accepted a $5000 campaign donation from an individual named in her election return as Naseer Sadiq, on behalf of Mohsin Sheikh, contrary to the

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER 11

Canada Elections Act, and in violation of section 3(l) of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders.

E. That the Minister may have contravened the Privacy Act by providing MP Pat Martin with details of campaign worker Alina Balaican’s file.

Ifallegation“D”weretrue,Ibelieveitwould,infact,becontrarytotheCanada Elections Act,butprobablynottosection3(1)oftheConflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders,exceptinverytangentialsense.Nevertheless,itistruethattheMinister’sagentaccepteda$5,000campaigndonationfromanindividualnamedinherelectionreturnasNaseerSadiqonbehalfofMrMohsinSheikh.TheformerMinisterregardsthematterasanhonestmistake,onethatwascorrectedappropriatelyonceitwasdiscovered.

IhavenotpursuedthismatterfurthersinceitappearstobebeyondthejurisdictionoftheEthicsCommissioner.Ifthereisinterestinpursuingthisissue,itshouldbereferredtotheCommissionerofCanadaElections.

Withrespecttoallegation“E”,Icanindicatethat,fromthepointofviewofthePrimeMinister’sconflictofinterestcode,muchwoulddependonjustwhatwasmeantbytheword“details”.PatMartinorhisstaffwouldalwaysbeentitledtoasktheMinisteraboutthecurrentstatusoftheBalaicancase,oranyother.Theywouldnot,however,atleastaccordingtothePrimeMinister’scode,beentitledtootherdetails.GiventhattheallegationitselfreferstothePrivacy Act,itismyviewthat,ifthematteristobepursuedfurther,itshouldbetakenupwiththeOfficeofthePrivacyCommissioner.

(iv)Allegations:SpecialCasesTwooftheallegationsputforwardbyMsAblonczywereasfollows:

F. That the Minister, her office, or the Government of Canada may have been ethically compromised if it is true that a former staff member of the Minister is under investigation for security reasons.

G. That the Minister (and/or the department) does not keep complete records of temporary resident permits personally issued by the Minister, records which could be broken down by riding or in any other way.

ItisnotatallcleartomehowthematterinAllegation“F”couldbeimaginedtobeanethicalquestionunless,ofcourse,theMinister,inhiringherstaff,hadsomehowtriedtocircumventthesecurityclearanceproceduresthatareinplaceforallMinister’sExemptStaff(MES).Thereis,however,noevidencethatthisisthecase.Theevidenceis,infact,thateachmemberoftheMinister’sstaffreceivedtheappropriatesecurityclearance.

ItistruethattestimonybyMsSgroandMrWonsindicatedthatconcernshadbeenraisedregardingonememberoftheirstaffwhowasfromSriLanka.However,wehaveverifiedwiththeSecurityBranchoftheDepartmentofCitizenshipandImmigrationthat,asmentionedabove,allmembersofMinister

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y


Sgro’sstaffweresecurity-clearedtothe“secret”level.Therewasonecasewhereadelayoccurredintheissuanceofthesecurityclearance;however,thiswasattributabletoinquiriesthatneededtobemadeinaforeigncountrybecausetheindividualhadlivedthereforaperiodoftime.

Moreover,theSecurityBranchoftheDepartmentofCitizenshipandImmigrationconfirmedthatnoinvestigationhadeverbeeninitiatedwithrespecttoanindividualworkingintheformerMinister’soffice.

Ofcourse,nosecurity-clearancesystemisperfect,anditisalwayspossiblethatatsomelaterdateforwhateverreasonasecurityorasecurity-relatedissuemightariseinconnectionwithastaffmemberstillorformerlywiththeMinister’sstaff.Appropriateactionatthattimewould,ofcourse,dependonthecontext.Thisisamatterthatcanonlybedealtwithinthefuture.Todate,theMinisterhascompliedfullywithherresponsibilitiesinthisarea.

Allegation“G”questionswhetheritshouldbeacommonbusinesspracticefortheTemporaryResidencePermits(TRPs)beingissuedbytheMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigrationtobefiledorarchivedaccordingtotheMPortheridingbringingthematterforward.Thiswouldseemtobeareasonable,althoughclearlynotamandatorypractice,butthegeneralquestionofacommonbusinesspracticeforrecordingtheissuanceofTRPsbyridingorinanyotherwayisanadministrativematter,whichisclearlyoutsidemyjurisdictionasEthicsCommissionerand,perhaps,outsidethejurisdictionoftheHouseitself,exceptinexceptionalcircumstances.

Itis,however,thecasethatlistswereobtainedundersubpoenafromtheMinister’sofficethatwereassociatedwiththeissuanceofTRPsandidentifiedwithparticularMPs(cf.allegation6below).Theseappear,however,tohavebeenpreparedastemporaryarrangements,attheinitiativeofthespecialassistantsintheoffice,tokeeptrackoftheTRPcasesthattheywerehandling.

(v)Allegations:EthicsTheheartofmyownresponseinthisinquiryrelatestothesixallegationsthatIunderstoodasbothcentraltothegeneralissuesraisedandwithinthejurisdictionoftheEthicsCommissioner.Thesesixallegationsarepresentedalongwithmyresponsetothemintheremainderofthissectionofthereport.

H. That Ms Sgro, just three days before the federal election, granted a temporary resident and work permit to Alina Balaican, enabling her to avoid the normal process, upon expiry of her original temporary work permit, of applying for landed immigrant status from outside the country. Ms Balaican was a volunteer in Ms Sgro’s re-election campaign.

Thesestatementsarealltrue.MsSgrodidapprovetheissuanceofaTemporaryResidenceandworkpermittoMsAlinaBalaicanthreedaysbeforetheendofthefederalelection,andMsBalaicanwasavolunteerinMsSgro’sre-electioncampaign,forwhicheffortshereceived(asdidallotherSgrovolunteers)a“form”thank-younoteonthedayofthefederalelection.

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY


Thesequenceofeventsappearstobeasfollows:

• OnMay24,2004,MsAlinaBalaicanwasadvisedbyCitizenshipandImmigrationCanadathat hertemporaryworkpermitcouldnotberenewedandthatshewaswithoutlegalstatusin Canada.

• MsBalaicanandherhusband,aCanadiancitizen,approachedAllanRock’sconstituencyoffice topresstheircaseforaTemporaryResidencePermit(TRP).MrRockwasnotthere(hehad vacatedhisseatintheHouseofCommons);theconstituencystaffdid,overaperiodof approximatelyonemonth,trytoassistMsBalaican.However,astheyreceivednopositive response,MsBalaicanandherhusbandwenttoMinisterSgro’scampaignoffice.

• Inthecampaignoffice,theytalkedwithIhorWons,presentingtheircasetohimandproviding himwith4to5pagesofmaterial;inaddition,theyvolunteeredtoworkontheMinister’s re-electioncampaign.Subsequently,theydidactuallyworkonthecampaign:MsBalaican’s nameappearsonthelistofvolunteerworkers,allofwhom,asindicatedabove,received thank-younotesfromtheMinisteronthedayoftheelection.

• MrWonsdiscussedthecasewithMsBalaicanandherhusband(MrMulholland)andthen referredit(althoughnot,interestingly,MsBalaican)toKatherineAbbott,theMinister’s designatedstaffmemberwhoactedastheliaisonbetweentheMinisterandtheDepartmentof CitzenshipandImmigrationduringtheelectioncampaign.

• Afterareviewofthecase,andapparentlyrespondingbothtothesubstanceofthecaseandto whatappearstobecontinuinginterestinthematterbyMrWons,MsAbbottpresentedthecase totheMinisterwho,usingthediscretionarypowersgrantedtoherundertheImmigration and Refugee Protection Act,directedthattheTRPbegranted.

• TheTRPwasgranted:MsBalaicanwascontactedshortlyafterwardsbythelocalCitizenship andImmigrationofficeandtoldthattheTRPhadbeenissued.

Inthissequenceofevents,itisclearthattheMinisteractednotonlyentirelywithinherlegitimatediscretionarypowersasprovidedforbylaw,butalsoforreasons(familyunification,marriagetoaCanadiancitizen,possibleexploitationbyanimmigrationconsultant)thatwereconsistentwithherpreviousdiscretionarydecisions.AtissueiswhethertherewasanylinkbetweenthisdecisionandthestatusofMsBalaicanasavolunteerintheMinister’sre-electioncampaign.

Thecrucialquestionis,therefore,whethertheMinisterknewthatMsBalaicanwasavolunteerwhenshemadethedecisiontogranttheTRP.TheMinister,whohasclearlynevermetMsBalaican,categoricallystatedthatshewasunawareofthisfact.Furthermore,MrMulhollandandMsBalaicanaffirmtheynevermettheMinister.KatherineAbbott,who,astheMinister’sdesignatedcontactwiththedepartment,presentedthecasetotheMinister,clearlyknew(asdidIhorWons)thatMsBalaicanwasavolunteerandthatapotentialconflictofinterestwasinvolved.

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y


Generally,MsAbbottwasaforthrightandverycrediblewitness,andhertestimonywasveryhelpful.Unfortunately,inrelationtothisparticularissue,sheexpressedsomeuncertaintyastowhetherornotshehadinformedtheMinisteraboutMsBalaican’sstatusasavolunteer.Sherepeatedthatshethoughtshehad,butshestoppedshortatthetimeofbeingabletofullyconfirmit.Perhapsheruncertaintyisduetothefactthat,bythetimetheBalaicandecisionwasmade,MsAbbotthad(asshesuggestedinadifferentbutrelatedcontext)“givenupfighting”withMrWonsoverthisandotherdepartmentalmatters.Ontheotherhand,MsAbbottdidindicatethat,atthetime,sheraisedthematterwithtwoothercolleaguesontheMinister’sstaff.Unfortunately,neitherofthemwasabletorecallherhavingdoneso.

Followingthefederalelectioncampaign,MsAbbottdidmeetwithScottReidofthePrimeMinister’sOfficeinordertoexpressconcernsaboutthehandlingofsomecasesbyMrWonsduringthecampaign.WhilethereissomeinconsistencybetweenthetestimonyofMsAbbottandMrReidastowhethertheBalaicancasewasdiscussedduringtheirmeeting,MrReidwassatisfiedthattheMinisterhadnot,ingeneral,intervenedinappropriatelyintheimmigrationcases.

Onbalance,agreatdealofuncertaintyremains.However,givenMsAbbott’sdoubtsatthetimeswhenevidencewastakenunderoath,andtheMinister’sabsolutedenial,IchoosetobelievethattheMinister,ingrantingtheTRPtoMsBalaican,waseitherunawareofthefactordidnotrecallthatMsBalaicanwasoneofthemanyvolunteersinherre-electioncampaign.

However,thematterisfurthercomplicatedbytheactionsofMrWons,whowasonleavefromhisstaffpositioninordertoworkonthere-electioncampaign.Ibelievethat,intentionallyornot,heplacedtheMinisterinapossiblyrealbutcertainlyapparentconflictofinterestby(a)discussingtheBalaicancasemorefullythanappropriatewithMsBalaicaninsteadofreferringherimmediatelytoKatherineAbbott,(b)requestingfeedbackfromKatherineAbbottontheongoingstatusofthecase,and(c)allowingMsBalaicantoactasavolunteerinthecampaignwhileshewassimultaneouslyseekingtheMinister’sdirectandactiveinterventioninhercase.Moreover,itiscertainthatMrWons’sstatementinaletterdatedSeptember4,2004toTimMurphyofthePrimeMinister’sOfficethat“…anyonethatIknewwhohadanopenimmigrationfilewaswarnednottovolunteerinthecampaign”waseithernottrueornoteffectivelyfollowedup,atleastinthisparticularcase.

I. That Harjit Singh, who was dodging a deportation order from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) pursuant to which a Canada-wide arrest warrant had been issued for his arrest, regularly delivered pizza to the Minister’s campaign office in Toronto. It is alleged that he spoke more than once to senior Sgro staffers disclosing his status and asking for assistance from the Minister. None of the Minister’s staffers, workers or associates at any time notified the authorities of this man’s whereabouts.

MrSinghwasunderaCitizenshipandImmigrationCanada(CIC)deportationorder,andonJune1,2004,theCanadaBorderServicesAgencydidsendhimaletterindicatingthathewasunderaremovalorderandthathewastoappearforaninterviewonJune17,2004.Hewasalsoadvisedthatifhedidnotappear,aCanada-widewarrantmightbeissued.MrSinghdidnotappearonJune17,2004,buthis

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER 1�

son,ParminderSingh,wrotealettertotheGreaterTorontoEnforcementCentre,attachingadoctor’scertificateinsupportofhisfather’sabsence.NoCanada-widearrestwarranthad,however,beenissuedduringtheelectioncampaign,andtherewas,therefore,noparticularreasonfortheMinister’sstaff,workersorassociates,tonotifytheauthorities.

Duringtheelectioncampaign,MrSinghwas,however,deliveringfoodtotheMinister’scampaignofficefreeofcharge.Inthiscase,IhorWonsacted,inthefirstinstance,appropriately:heimmediatelyreferredtheimmigrationmattertoKatherineAbbott,theMinister’sdesignatedliaisonpersonwiththedepartment,andinthiscase,consistentwithhislaterstatementtoTimMurphyofthePrimeMinister’sOffice,heindicatedtoMrSinghthat“itwasinappropriate”forsuchdeliveriestobemadeortobecontinued,andheaskedthatthispracticecease.Apparently,however,MrSinghcontinuedtomakethefooddeliveries,atleastforatime,andhecertainlycontinuedtobepresentintheMinister’scampaignoffice,ononeoccasionforanentireweekend.Hiscontributiontothecampaign,whetheroffreefoodoranythingelse,wasofficiallyacknowledgedbytheMinisterinthe“formletter”ofthankstovolunteerssignedbytheMinisteronJune28,2004,thedateofthefederalelection.

Withrespecttothesubstanceoftheimmigrationcaseinvolved,thatis,therequestbyMrSinghforastayofthedeportationorder,activeconsiderationofthemattercontinued.Inane-mailtoKatherineAbbottjustaftertheelection,afterMrSinghprovidedadditionaldocumentsforconsideration,MrWonswrote,“Weowethisguy–alookatthefaxhesentyoutoday–toseeifitchangeswherewe’regoingonthisfile.Afterwemakethefinaldecisionweshouldcallhimwiththeendresult.”Inanycase,MsAbbottexploredthematterwithCitizenshipandImmigrationCanada(CIC),andsomeissuesarosewithrespecttothedifferencesbetweenCIC’sinformationandtheinformationthatMrSinghwasproviding.ConsiderationwasthereforegivenbytheMinister’sstafftorecommendingathree-monthstayofthedeportationorderwhilethesedifferencesweresortedout.Inane-mailtoofficialsintheDepartmentoftheSolicitorGeneralofCanada,LeighLampertwrote,“TheministerwishestostudythecaseofHarjitSINGHfurtherandisrequestingastayofremovalforaperiodof60days.”Aswell,whenspecificallyquestionedonthismatter,MsAbbotttestifiesthatshehadspokenwiththeMinisterregardingtherecommendationfora3-monthstayofdeportationforMrSinghandthattheMinister“wasokaywiththat,atthattime.”However,uponreconsideration,andattheurgingofCICofficials,thispossiblecourseofactionwasnotfollowed.Inanothere-mailsenttothesameofficialsintheDepartmentoftheSolicitorGeneral,MrLampertwrote,“AsdiscussedandgiventhecircumstancesregardingMrSingh’scasepleaseCANCELtherequestforastay.”Subsequenttothis,nofurtherreliefwaseitherrecommendedorgrantedbytheMinistertoMrSingh.

Despitethelackofappropriatefollow-upbythoseinthecampaignofficetoMrWons’sinstructions,atleasttheonesinvolvingMrSingh,thatMrSinghceaseanddesistinthedeliveryoffreefoodandtheconflictofinterestintroducedbycontinuingtotolerateMrSingh’spresenceinthecampaignoffice,thereisabsolutelynocredibleevidencetosupportMrSingh’slaterallegationthattheMinisterhadmetwithMrSinghandhadagreedtoassisthiminanywayinexchangeforthedeliveryoffreefoodoranythingelse.

Inanyevent,theGreaterTorontoEnforcementCentrebookedMrSingh’spermanentdeparturefromCanadaforJuly10,2004,andhewasdeportedonFebruary2,2005.

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER1�

J. That Song Dae Ri, a North Korean defector who was seeking landed immigrant status in Canada, was also active in Ms Sgro’s campaign office.

ItwouldhardlybesurprisingiftheMinister’scampaignofficeattractedindividualswithimmigrationissues,andalthoughtheSongDaeRicasewasahighlypublicizedimmigrationmatter,thereisnoevidencetosupportthisparticularallegation.ItistruethatMrSongDaeRivisitedMsSgro’scampaignofficeatleasttwice;onthesecondoccasionhepresentedsupportingpetitionsfromtheKoreancommunity,whichwerelaterforwardedtotheCICheadofficeinOttawa,buthiscasewasalreadyknowntoMrWons,MsAbbottandotherstaff.TheMinisterwasinformedthatMrRihadbeenintheoffice,andsheagreedthatthiswasinappropriate.Onbothvisits,SongDaeRiandthoseaccompanyinghimwereaskedtoleavethepremises.

Itisalsotrue,however,thatawomanwhoaccompaniedMrRionhissecondvisitwasobservedtobe“stuffingenvelopes”or“foldingflyers”,butshewasapparentlynotaregularvolunteer,andthereisnoevidenceofanylinkbetweenthiscasualandapparentlyone-timeworkandanyeffortbytheMinisterorherstafftoinfluencetheoutcomeofSongDaeRi’sapplicationforimmigrantstatusinCanada.However,whatisclearlyillustratedinthiscase,andinthecasesofMsBalaicanandMrSingh,iswhatturnedouttobetheveryawkwardcombinationofinsufficientexclusionfromthecampaignofficeofvolunteerswithopenimmigrationfilesandinsufficientcaretakenbystafftoprotecttheMinisterbyseparatingcampaignmattersfromdepartmentalbusiness.

K. That the Minister’s political staff worked on the Minister’s re-election campaign while charging their expenses to the Minister’s Ottawa office budget, contrary to Treasury Board guidelines. It also seems that her then Chief of Staff, Ian Laird was on leave of absence at the time he gave instructions for the issuance of the permit to Balaican.

TheMinister’sExemptStaff(MES)(thatis,politicalstaff)canbebrokendownintothreegroups.ThefirstgroupcomprisestheindividualswhoworkintheMinister’sdepartmentaloffice–theirsalariesandbenefitsarepaidoutofpublicfunds.ThesecondgroupofindividualsareemployeeswhoworkoutoftheMP’sParliamentHilloffice–theirsalariesandbenefitsarepaidoutoftheMP’sbudgetasallocatedbytheBoardofInternalEconomy.ThethirdgrouparetheindividualswhoworkintheMP’sconstituencyoffice,andtheyarealsopaidoutoftheMP’sbudgetasallocatedbytheHouseofCommonsBoardofInternalEconomy.

InthecaseofMsSgro,therewere25individuals(includingeightpublicservants)inthefirstgroup,oneinthesecondgroupandthreeinthethird.AlthoughmyOfficewasunabletoconductafullprofessionalaudit,wedidexaminedetailsofthework,thepaystatusandthetravelandotherexpensesofeachofthe29individualsinvolvedforeachdayoftheperiodoftheelectioncampaign(May25,2004-June28,2004).TherelevantregulationsgoverningtheseindividualsduringanelectioncampaignallowthemtoworkontheMinister’sre-electioncampaignontheirowntime,thatis,intheeveningsandonweekends.Staffmembersworkinganyadditionaltimeonthecampaignarerequiredtotakealeaveofabsence(LOA)withoutpay.

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY


InthecaseofMsSgro’scampaignandstaff,theMinister’sChiefofStaffwas“inplace”inOttawathroughoutthecampaign.Itwasdepartmentalprocedurethat,oncetheMinisterhadapprovedtheissuanceofaTRP,theChiefofStafforanotherexemptstaffmemberwouldsigntheministerialauthorization.MrLairddidtakeanofficialleaveofabsenceforasingleday,ElectionDay(June28,2004),butthiswasnotthedayonwhichhesignedtheministerialauthorizationfortheBalaicanpermit.

InadditiontoMrLaird’sone-dayabsence,threeotherindividualsfromtheMinister’sstaffweregrantedleavesofabsencewithoutpaysoastoworkfull-timeontheelectioncampaign.ThesewereGeoffreySmith(June3,2004–June28,2004),IhorWons(June3,2004–June28,2004)andByronAllin(May25,2004-June28,2004),andIfoundnoevidencethatanyoftheir(orMrLaird’s)expenseshadbeeninappropriatelychargedtotheMinister’sOttawabudget.

Therewere,however,twoindividuals:EmilyMarangoni(Torontoconstituencyoffice,officemanager)andJennyHooper(ParliamentHillOfficestaff)whoweregrantedcompensatoryleavewithpay,thatis,inlieuofunpaidovertime,inordertoworkonthere-electioncampaign.WhileIhavenoreasontodoubtthelegitimacyofsuchcompensatoryleaveinthesetwocases,norecordswereavailabletomerelativetotheovertimeactuallyworkedinrecognitionofwhichsuchleavewouldbejustified.

Inadditiontotheabove,travelandhospitalityexpensesduringtheelectionperiodweredisclosedforMESstaffmembersKatherineAbbott,SimoneMacAndrewandLeighLampert.Theseexpenseswereexaminedindetail,butIfoundnoinstancewherecampaignexpenseswerechargedtotheMinister’sOttawabudget.

Further,IfoundnoevidencethatMsSgro’sMESstaffwereconductingcampaignbusinesswhilebeingpaidoutofpublicfunds.

L. That the Minister offered special access to two and possibly more owners of strip clubs to discuss with her Chief of Staff, Ihor Wons and/or other ministerial staff whether the Minister might be able to assist them in bringing additional strippers into Canada.

ItappearsthatIhorWonsdid,priortotheperiodofthefederalelection,meetwiththeownersoftwostripclubs:MrKoumoudourosoftheHouseofLancasterandMrPsihogiosoftheAirportStripClub,althoughMrWonsdoesnotrecallthemeetingwithMrPsihogios.Thereis,however,noindicationthattheMinisterwaspresentatthesemeetingsnorthatthesemeetingsweretheresultoftheMinister’sinterventioninanattempttoofferspecialaccess.TherequestsforameetingcameinonecasedirectlyfromtheownertoMrWonsinhiscapacityasaseniorpolicyadvisor,notChiefofStaff,totheMinister,andthemeetingtookplaceattheHouseofLancasteritself.Intheothercase,thecontactwithMrWonswasmadebytheExecutiveDirectoroftheAdultEntertainmentAssociation.InneithercasedoesthereappeartohavebeenanyinvolvementbyeithertheMinisterorotherministerialstaff.

Whateverone’sviewsmaybeabouttheappropriatepolicywithrespecttotheimmigrationofvariousoccupationalgroups[itdoesbeggartheimaginationthatHumanResourcesandSkillsDevelopmentCanadaoranyothergovernmentagencymighthavecaredwhetherornottherewasashortageinthis

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER1�

particulararea],MrWons’schoicetomeettheownersoftheseclubs,inatleastonecaseintheirplaceofbusinessratherthaningovernmentoffices,seemstobeindelicateandtorevealpoorjudgmentonhispart.Itisclear,however,thatdespitethemeetings,noassistancewasinfactprovidedinresponsetotheowners’requestforpermissiontobringmorewomentoCanadaasexoticdancers.

M. That the Immigration Minister told her Liberal colleagues that she would not issue ministerial permits during the election and then handed out at least a dozen permits to her own political donors and campaign workers.

Inthiscontext,inherfirstletter,datedNovember20,2004,afterherallegationsinrelationtoMsBalaican,MrSinghandMrRi,MsAblonczyadds:

“TheseallegationsraiseseriousquestionsastowhethertheSgrocampaignattractedindividuals seekingspecialpreferencefromtheMinisterandwhetherspecialpreferencewas,infact, extendedinoneformoranother.”

WithrespecttotheissuanceofTemporaryResidencePermits(TRPs),theMinistercommentedunderoath:

“ImadepeopleawareofthefactthatIwasgoingtobemorecautiouseventhanbeforewith issuingTRPsthroughanelectioncampaign.ThatIwasnotgoingtobeengagedinusingTRPs forelectionpurposesorforpoliticalpurposesthroughthecampaign.Imadethatquiteclearto people.Weweregoingtotrytokeepourselvesdowntotheonesthatweremosturgent.”

Thiscautiousapproachwasevidentatthecampaign’sbeginning.Thus,inane-mailexchangebetweenLeighLampertandKatherineAbbottdatedJune8,2004,MrLampertstated:

“Ispokewith…(Note:aLiberalMP)toreiteratetheMinister’spolicyduringtheelection. He/sheisveryunhappythattheMinisterwillnotbeintervening…”Inanothere-mailexchangeonMay20,2004,MrLamperttoldMinisterSgroaboutaconversationhehadhadwithanotherLiberalMP,andMrLampertstated:

“Iexplained“emergenciesonly”now...he/shesaysthisisanemergencygivenitspolitical importance…butthefilelooksnodifferentfrommanyothersandwewillgivethesame groundsforrefusal.”

Thispolicyseemed,however,tofadeduringthelastpartofthecampaign.Thus,inhertestimonygivenunderoathonApril8,2005,KatherineAbbottcommented:

“She(MinisterSgro)reallydidnotwanttobedoingalotofpermits.Herclearintentionall alongwasnottobedoingalotofpermitsduringtheelection.”

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY


However,uponfurtherexamination,MsAbbottindicatedthatinrelationtothenumberofpermitsthatwereissuedtowardtheendoftheelectioncampaign:

“…wewerereactingtothetemperatureintheoutsideworld,andwewerealsogettingalotof pressure,and…

...becausewereinthatshortperiodoftime,becausetherewasathoughtthatwemightnot comeback,therewasmoreofapressureofjust…gettingitdone.”

Itisalmostasiftheentireissuebecameelectorallydefinedratherthanbeingunderstoodintermsoftheneedsoftheapplicant.AsLeighLamperttestified:

“…Iknowcertainlybetween…twoweeks,threeweeksbeforetheelectioncalluntil mid-election,therewasasignificantchangeinattitude.Youaregoingfromanopermitexcept duringemergenciesto…Iwon’tsaya“freeforall”…buttochangeofattitudethatthereare muchmoreforthcomingpermits.”

Inthefinalanalysis,theDepartmentofCitizenshipandImmigration,throughtheirDepartmentofJusticecounsel,providedmyOfficewithalistofpersonswhoweregrantedministerialTemporaryResidencePermits(TRPs)duringtheperiodfromMay25toJune28,2004.Fromthislist,128individualsweregrantedTRPsbytheMinisterduringthe2004federalelectioncampaign.WhenthislistwascomparedwithlistsobtainedfromtheMinister’sofficeundersubpoenaandasreferredtoinallegation“G”,wewereabletoidentify94specificfiles.Ofthese,43wereauthorizedbytheMinisterduringthelastweekofthefederalelectioncampaign.In76cases,aspecificMPislistedassupportingtheapplication.Ofthese,twoweresupportedbyaConservativeMP,whiletheremaining74wereidentifiedwithLiberalMPs.Ofthese74cases,24wereidentifieddirectlywithMinisterSgro,19ofwhichwereapprovedbetweenJune23,2004andJune25,2004.

Thesepermitswerenot,however,giventoSgrocampaigndonorsorvolunteers.Incross-referencingthedonorandvolunteerlistswiththoseindividualsreceivingTRPs,nodonors’namesandonlytwovolunteers’namesappeared:thewifeanddaughterofoneofthenamedvolunteersobtainedTRPs,andtheothernamethatappearedwasthatofMsBalaican.

Ontheotherhand,thereappearedtobesomeindirectconnectionbetweenworkingasavolunteerontheminister’scampaignandabenefitthatmightaccruetorelatives,friendsorspecificorganization.Inthiscontext,thereis,forexample,thecaseofNaseerSadiq,thesamepersonreferredtoinallegation“D”,aboutwhomMsAbbotnotedinhertestimony:

“…Naseerwasagentlemanwhowasagreatresourcetotheelectioncampaign…hewasableto providevolunteers,manhours,labour”

ItwasalsothesameMrSadiqwho,inasteadystreamofe-mailstoIhorWons,askedforpermitsformanydifferentindividuals.Duringtheelectioncampaignitself,whenMrWons’sdepartmentale-mailwasunavailablebecausehewasonaleaveofabsence,MrSadiqwouldtrytoreachMrWonsbysending

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y


e-mailstootherstaffmembersbutmarked“ForthekindattentionofIhorWons”.Oneofthesee-mailsreads:

“Oneofmygoodfriends,…hiswife,…anddaughter…Pleaselookintotheprobabilityof issuingMinister’spermitsforthisfamily…”

MinisterialpermitswereapprovedforfourmembersofthisfamilyonJune25,2004foraperiodoftwoyears.Inanothercase,againduringtheelectioncampaign,MrSadiqwrotetoMrWons:

“…withreferenceto(thiscase)…hiswife…anddaughter…he(NationalPresidentofa religiousorganization)alsosaidthiscaseisNo.1priorityforhimashediscussedthecasewith theMinisterinhislastmeetingwithher...thebestoptionistogethertoTorontoasavisitor onMinister’sPermitoraccommodatinghiswifeanddaughteragainstthealreadyrequestedlist offortyvisitors.”

ThepersoninthiscasewasavolunteerontheSgrocampaignandministerialpermitswereapprovedforhiswifeanddaughteronJune24,2004.

Equallydamagingwithrespecttoconflictofinterestistheevidence–ofwhichtheabovearetwoexamples–thatIhorWons,whileonleaveofabsence,wasactiveinmanagingandpromotingimmigrationcaseswhenheshouldhavebeenlimitinghisownworktothere-electioncampaignandcarefullyseparatingthatresponsibilityfromsubstantiveministerialanddepartmentalwork.Inthiscontext,justasitisnotsurprisingthatindividualswithimmigrationissuesshouldgravitatetowardtheMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigrationcampaign,itisnotsurprisingthat,whenMrWonswasinformedonJune2,2004thathise-mailaccountwouldnotbeavailableduringtheelectioncampaign,heindicatedtoaministerialstaffmemberinOttawa:

“…justbecauseI’monleavedoesnotmeanI’mnotlookingaftertheinterestoftaxpayersthat payallofoursalaries.I’mstillworkingwiththeMinisteronfileshowamIsupposedto communicatewithher?Maybethepersonpushingthisissuecangivemesomeanswers.Ithink thisisaslapinmyfaceandpersonally,Iwillnotstandforit.”

Intheend,MrWonshadto“standforit”althoughhefoundotherwaysinwhichtocontinuehisactivities.Indeed,itwasthisveryinabilityand/orunwillingnessofMrWonstoseparatehimselffromthedepartmentwhilehewasworkingonthecampaignthatplacedtheMinister,withorwithoutherknowledge,andhoweverunintentionally,intheconflictofinterestdescribedabove.

ItisdifficulttoassesstheextenttowhichtheMinisterwasawareofMrWons’sinappropriateinterventionsandoftheextenttowhichassistanceinthecampaignwasusedtomakethecaseforTRPsforother,usuallyrelated,individuals.

DuringMsSgro’sexaminationunderoathwhenshewasquestioned,forexample,regardingtheissuanceofTRPsforindividualswishingtoattendtheannualAhmadiyyaconferenceinJulyand,inparticular,

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY


whethershewasawarethatanyonefromthatcommunitywasassistingonhercampaign,sheresponded:

“Therewasarepresentativewhowasassisting–Idon’tknowhowmuch,butthathewas assistingonourcampaigninoneformoranother,thatwaspartoftheorganizationofthis conferencebutthatwassomethingthatisdoneeveryyearasfarasassisting.”

WhenMsSgrowasaskedtoconfirmwhethersheknewifoneormoreoftheseindividualswereworkingonhercampaign,shereplied:

“Idon’tknowifhewasworkingonthecampaignbutheissomeoneweknowverywell.Ican onlyassumethathewouldhavegivenussomehoursofvolunteertime.”

Andfinally,whenquestionedwhethersheknewtheseindividualswerelookingforassistanceontheconferenceandatthesametimeworkingonthecampaign,shereplied:

“Iwasn’tconnectingthetwo,”and“Probably…Iexpectso.”

Withrespecttospecificcases,Ihavenotbeenabletoverifythecircumstancesineachinstance.MyjudgmentisthattheMinister’sknowledgeofspecificinstanceswherethoseseekingpermitsortheirsponsorswerealsoworkingonhercampaignseemslimited,butisnotcompletelynon-existent.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

TheEthicsCommissioner’sMandateTheterm“EthicsCommissioner”canbedefinedverybroadly.TheactuallegislativemandateoftheEthicsCommissionerofCanada,however,isquitenarrowlydefined,andislimited,inthisparticularinstance,tothePrimeMinister’sconflictofinterestcode,thatis,theConflict of Interest Code for Public Office Holders.

Thus,oftheallegationsmadeinMsDianeAblonczy’stwoletters,fivefalloutsidethelegislativemandateoftheEthicsCommissioner.Asoutlinedearlierinthisreport,threeofthese(“A”,“B”and“C”above)relatetomattersofparliamentaryprivilege;iftheyaretobepursued,theywouldneedtobetakenupbytheHouseofCommons.Twofurtherallegationswouldhavetobepursued,ifthereisstillinterestindoingso,throughthePrivacyCommissionerinonecase(“D”)andtheCommissionerofCanadaElectionsintheother(“E”).

Inaddition,thereweretwoallegationswhichseemedtobeunrelatedtothemandateoftheEthicsCommissionerbutforwhichnootherentityseemedtohavejurisdiction.Inthesetwocases(“F”and“G”above),Ihavehowever,providedsomeremarks.

The“Ethics”AllegationsAmongtheallegationsappropriatetothemandateoftheEthicsCommissioner,threewererelatedto

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y


individuals:thecasesofAlinaBalaican(#1),HarjitSingh(#2)andSongDaeRi(#3).AllthreeindividualswereseekingimmigrationstatusinCanada,andallthreewererequestingtheinterventionoftheformerMinisterofImmigration,theHonourableJudySgro,MPforYorkWest.Ofthethreecases,theMinisterintervenedonlyinthecaseofAlinaBalaican,whowasgrantedaTemporaryResidencePermitongroundswellwithintheMinister’slegislativediscretionandentirelyconsistentwiththeMinister’songoingcriteriaasreflectedinherpreviousdiscretionarydecisions.AlthoughtheothertwocaseswerecertainlydiscussedwiththeMinister,noreliefwasgranted.

ThedifficultycommontothecasesofMsBalaicanandMrSinghwasthattheindividualswereseekingactiveministerialinterventionatthesametimeastheywereactivelyassistingontheMinister’sre-electioncampaign.Basedontheevidence,itisconcludedthattheMinisterdidnotknowthatMsBalaicanwasacampaignvolunteeratthetimeshemadethedecisiontograntheraTemporaryResidencePermit,butmembersofherstaffcertainlydidknowthatthiswasthecase.Thus,althoughtheMinistermadeherdecisiononappropriatelysubstantivegrounds,herstaffplacedherinaconflictofinterestbothbyallowingMsBalaicantoserveasavolunteerinthefirstinstanceandthenbynotfullyandexplicitlyinformingtheMinisterwhenthecasewasbroughttoherforadecision.

TheMinisterherselfrecognizedthisissue.Althoughshewasnotsurprisedthatindividualsseekingimmigrationreliefwouldgotohercampaignoffice,whenquestionedwhethershethoughtitimportantforhertoknowifaparticularrequestrelatedtoapersonwhowasworkingonhercampaign,sheresponded:

“Ofcourse,Ishouldhaveknown.”

Andwhenaskedwhethershewouldhaveexpectedtohavebeentoldifsomeoneseekingherhelpwasworkingonhercampaign,shereplied:

“Wellitautomaticallyputsmeinapositionofconflict(ofinterest)ifsomeoneishelpingme andthenaskingforsomethingatthesametime.”

However,whenquestionedwhethersheinquiredofherstaffwhetheranyindividualsforwhomshewasbeingaskedtoexerciseherdiscretionwereworkingonhercampaign,shereplied:

“No,…Iwouldexpectthatstafffirstoffwouldn’tpresentittome…Iwouldexpectstaffnot eventobothertobringthatcasetome.”

TheMinister,indeed,reliedagreatdealonherstaff.Assheputit:

“Youhavetorelymoreandmoreonyourstaff…thesewereexperiencedstaffthatknewtherules…”

WhatevertheMinister’sexpectations,therealityseemstohavebeendifferent.TherewasnoseriousattempttoscreenvolunteerssoastoeliminatethoseseekingtheMinister’sactiveinterventionfortheirownbenefit.EvenintheRicase,whichwasdisposedofmorequicklyandmoredecisivelythantheothers,amemberofRi’saccompanyingentouragewasobservedassistinginthecampaignoffice.

TH

E S

GRO

IN

QU

IRY


Theadditionaldifficultyobservedinallthreecaseswastheinappropriateinterventionofcampaignstaffinongoingministerialanddepartmentalwork.MrIhorWons,latertheMinister’sactingChiefofStaff,appearedtobefarmoreinvolvedinthesemattersthanshouldhavebeenthecase,giventhathewasonanofficialleaveofabsencefromtheMinister’sOfficetoworkonhercampaign.HetherebyplacedtheMinisterinyetanotherconflictofinterest.

Someoftheother“ethics”allegationscanbemoreeasilydisposedof:

• therewasnoevidenceofanymixingofthecampaignanddepartmentalaccounts–allpersonnel, travelandhospitalityexpenseswerechargedaswasappropriatetoeitherthecampaignaccounts ortheMinister’spublicbudgets.• therewasnoevidencethattheMinistereithermetwithHarjitSinghoragreedtobeof assistancetohiminreturnforhishelponinherre-electioncampaign,and• therewasnoevidenceofanysecuritylapses:allSgrostaffhadreceivedtheappropriatesecurity clearanceatthe“secret”level.

InthematterofthegeneralissuingofTemporaryResidencePermits(TRPs),however,conflictofinterestdifficultiesdoarise.AlthoughtheMinisterhadmadeaseriousefforttoavoidchargesofpartisanshipbylimitingsuchpermitsbothinthefewmonthsbeforetheelectionandearlyintheelectioncampaign,thispolicyessentiallycollapsedduringthefinalweeksanddaysoftheelectioncampaign.TRPsweresuddenlyverymuchmoreavailable.Ofparticularconcern,however,isnotsomuchtheshiftinpolicyastheapparentcriteriausedingrantingthepermitsthatwerenowbecomingmorereadilyavailable.

Inparticular,notonlywasMinisterSgrolistedasthesponsoringMPinrathermorecasesthanmighthavebeenexpected,butalsothepermitsthemselvesseemedavailablenottodonorsorindividualslistedasvolunteersdirectlybuttotherelativesandassociatesofthosewhowereassistingthere-electioncampaign.ThiswasinclearviolationofPrinciple7oftheConflict of Interest Code for Public Office Holders,whichstates:

“Public office holders shall not use their position of office to assist private entities or persons where this would result in preferential treatment to any person.”

IthasnotbeenpossibleformetodetermineineachcasewhethertherewasarelationshipbetweenthepersonbeinggiventhepermitandpersonsactiveinMsSgro’sre-electioncampaignand,ifthatwasthecase,whetherMinisterSgrowasawareofthisrelationship.WhilethemainburdenofresponsibilityforthisconflictofinterestenvironmentappearstoliewiththeMinister’sstaff,primarilyMrIhorWons,andwhiletheMinister’srelianceonherstaffwasnotalwayswellplaced,thisdoesnotabsolveherofmajorresponsibility-afterall,itwasonherdirectauthorizationthattheTRPswereissued.Asisclearlyoutlinedin“Governing Responsibly: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State”:

“Ministers are individually responsible to Parliament and the Prime Minister for their own actions and those of their department including the actions of all officials under their management and direction, whether or not the ministers had prior knowledge.”

TH

E S

GRO

INQ

UIR

Y


Whatbeingresponsibleactuallymeansremainsvague.Itisclearthat–againtoquotefromtheGuide:

“When errors or wrongdoings are committed by officials under their direction, Ministers are responsible for promptly taking the necessary remedial steps for providing assurances to Parliament that appropriate corrective action has been taken to prevent reoccurrence.”

Whatfurtherconsequencestheremightbeisleft,perhapsintentionally,vague.Errorsandwrongdoingsvary,afterall,inimportance.Inactualpractice,Oppositionparties,bothattheprovincialandthefederallevel,tendtocallforaparticularMinister’sresignation,whilepartiesingovernmenttendtoresistsuchcallsinmost,butcertainlynotall,cases.Inthiscase,MinisterSgroclearlywasplacedinaconflictofinterestwithrespecttothegrantingofTemporaryResidencePermits(TRPs)duringthelatterhalfofthefederalelectioncampaigningeneralandwithrespecttoMsAlinaBalaicaninparticular.TheMinisterhasalreadyresigned,andwithoutcommentonthatdecision,Ihavenofurtherrecommendationtomake.Withrespect,however,tothefuture,theprinciplesoftheConflict of Interest Code for Public Office Holdersclearlyimplythatministersrunningforre-electionmusttakeparticularcare(i)toseparatetheirelectionstafffromotherstafftoensurethattheformerdonotparticipateindepartmentalbusinessduringthecampaign,and(ii)toscreentheirvolunteerworkerssoastoexcludethosewhoareseekingministerialinterventioneitherontheirownbehalfand/oronbehalfofrelativesandclosepersonalfriends.

FutureConcerns:TheEthicsCommissionerTheexperienceofconductingthisinquiryhasraisedforme,asEthicsCommissioner,anumberofsub-stantiveandproceduralissuesthatIintendtotakeupmorefullyinasubsequentreport.Amongtheseandinnoparticularorderofimportancewillbe:

• theimportanceofavoidingtheovertlypoliticalfraythatcansurroundinquiriesundertaken eitherundertheParliament of Canada ActortheConflict of Interest Code for Public Office Holders;• theconflictofinterestthatcanarisefortheCommissionerbetweentwoofhis/herroles:the provisionofconfidentialadvicetoapublicofficeholderandtheconductofinquiriesconcerning thatsamepublicofficeholder;• thedevelopmentformystaff,membersofParliamentandpublicofficeholdersofclearerprocedural guidelinesforinquiries;suchguidelineswouldassist,amongotherthings,inprovidingamore timelyresponsetoacomplaintthanwaspossibleinthisfirstinstance;• areviewoftheParliament of Canada Actwiththeobjectiveofensuringthatitsvariousprovisions withregardtotheconductingofexaminationsbytheEthicsCommissioner(i)arefullyand clearlyconsistentwitheachother,(ii)providereasonableprotectionnotonlyfortheindividual againstwhomallegationsaremadebutalsotowitnesseswhoarecalledtotestify,and(iii) provideaframeworkfortherangeofallegationstobemadeinarequestforenquiry.

Respectfullysubmitted,

BernardJ.Shapiro, EthicsCommissioner June21,2005

APP

EN

DIX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER I-1

APPENDIX I

LEGISLATIvE AuTHORITy fOR ExAMINATIONS By THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER

STATuTES Of CANADA 2004, CHAPTER 7, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence – Bill C-4 [Assented to March 31, 2004]

72.07MandateThemandateoftheEthicsCommissionerinrelationtopublicofficeholdersis(a)toadministeranyethicalprinciples,rulesorobligationsestablishedbythePrimeMinisterforpublicofficeholders;(b)toprovideconfidentialadvicetothePrimeMinisterwithrespecttothoseethicalprinciples,rulesorobligationsandethicalissuesingeneral;and(c)toprovideconfidentialadvicetoapublicofficeholderwithrespecttotheapplicationtohimorherofthoseethicalprinciples,rulesorobligations.

72.08Requestfromparliamentarian(1)AmemberoftheSenateorHouseofCommonswhohasreasonablegroundstobelievethataministeroftheCrown,aministerofstateoraparliamentarysecretaryhasnotobservedtheethicalprinciples,rulesorobligationsestablishedbythePrimeMinisterforpublicholdersofficemay,inwriting,requestthattheEthicsCommissionerexaminethematter.

Contentofrequest(2)Therequestshallidentifytheallegednon-observanceoftheethicalprinciples,rulesorobligationsestablishedbythePrimeMinisterforpublicofficeholdersandsetoutthereasonablegroundsforthebeliefthattheyhavenotbeenobserved.Examination(3)TheEthicsCommissionershallexaminethematterdescribedinarequestand,havingregardtoallthecircumstancesofthecase,maydiscontinuetheexamination.Report(4)TheEthicsCommissionershall,evenifheorshediscontinuestheexaminationofarequest,providethePrimeMinisterwithareportsettingoutthefactsinquestionaswellastheEthicsCommissioner’sanalysisandconclusionsinrelationtotherequest.

APPE

ND

IX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONERI-2

Makingreportavailable(5)TheEthicsCommissionershall,atthesametimethatthereportisprovidedundersubsection(4),provideacopytothememberwhomadetherequest-andtheministerorparliamentarysecretarywhoisthesubjectoftherequest-andmakethereportavailabletothepublic.

Confidentiality(6)TheEthicsCommissionermaynotincludeinthereportanyinformationthatheorsheisrequiredtokeepconfidential.

72.09PresentationofviewsBeforeprovidingconfidentialadviceunderparagraph72.07(b)orareportundersubsection72.08(4),theEthicsCommissionershallprovidethepublicofficeholderconcernedwithareasonableopportunitytopresenthisorherviews.72.10Powers(1)Forthepurposesofparagraph72.07(b)andsection72.08,theEthicsCommissionerhasthepowertosummonwitnessesandrequirethem(a)togiveevidence-orallyorinwriting-onoathor,iftheyarepersonsentitledtoaffirmincivilmatters,onsolemnaffirmation;and(b)toproduceanydocumentsandthingsthattheEthicsCommissionerconsidersnecessary.Enforcement(2)TheEthicsCommissionerhasthesamepowertoenforcetheattendanceofwitnessesandtocompelthemtogiveevidenceasacourtofrecordincivilcases.Powersexercisedinprivate(3)Thepowersreferredtoinsubsections(1)and(2)shallbeexercisedinprivate.Inadmissibility(4)Informationgivenbyapersonunderthissectionisinadmissibleagainstthepersoninacourtorinanyproceeding,otherthaninaprosecutionofthepersonforanoffenceundersection131oftheCriminalCode(perjury)inrespectofastatementmadetotheEthicsCommissioner.Confidentiality(5)TheEthicsCommissioner,andeverypersonactingonbehalforunderthedirectionoftheEthicsCommissioner,maynotdiscloseanyinformationthatcomestotheirknowledgeintheperformanceoftheirdutiesandfunctionsunderthissection,unless(a)thedisclosureis,intheopinionoftheEthicsCommissioner,essentialforthepurposesofthissection;or(b)theinformationisdisclosedinthecourseofaprosecutionforanoffenceundersection131oftheCriminalCode(perjury)inrespectofastatementmadetotheEthicsCommissioner.

APP

EN

DIX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER I-3

72.11Suspensionofexamination(1)TheEthicsCommissionershallimmediatelysuspendanexaminationreferredtoinsection72.08if(a)theEthicsCommissionerbelievesonreasonablegroundsthattheministerorparliamentarysecretaryhascommittedanoffenceunderanActofParliamentinrespectofthesamesubjectmatter,inwhichcasetheEthicsCommissionershallnotifytherelevantauthorities;or(b)itisdiscoveredthatthesubjectmatteroftheexaminationisalsothesubjectmatterofaninvestigationtodeterminewhetheranoffencereferredtoinparagraph(a)hasbeencommittedorthatachargehasbeenlaidinrespectofthatsubjectmatter.Investigationcontinued(2)TheEthicsCommissionermaynotcontinueanexaminationuntilanyinvestigationorchargeinrespectofthesamesubjectmatterhasbeenfinallydisposedof.

APP

EN

DIX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER II-1

APPENDIX II

November20,2004

MrBernardShapiroEthicsCommissioner66SlaterStreet,22ndFloorOttawa,ONK1P5H1

DearCommissionerShapiro:

Re:RequestforInquiryPursuanttoSection72.08(1)oftheParliamentofCanadaAct

ThisletteristoformallyrequestthatyouasEthicsCommissionerinquireintowhethertheMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration,JudySgro,hasfullyobservedtherulesestablishedbythePrimeMinisterforMinistersoftheCrownassetoutintheConflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders.ImakethisrequestbecausethecredibilityofCanada’simmigrationandrefugeesystemasbeingfairandimpartialisatstake.

BasedonstatementsbyofficialsintheDepartmentofCitizenshipandImmigration,byformerstaffersintheMinister’sOffice,andbysomewhoparticipatedinherre-electioncampaign,allofwhichhavebeenreportedinthemedia,seriousconcernshavearisenregardingpossibleabuseofpowerbyMsSgro.Specifically,ithasbeenallegedthatMsSgro,justthreedaysbeforethefederalelection,grantedatemporaryresidenceandworkpermittoAlinaBalaican,enablinghertoavoidthenormalprocessof,upontheexpiryofheroriginaltemporaryworkpermit,applyingforlandedimmigrantstatusfromoutsidethecountry.MsBalaicanwasavolunteerinMsSgro’sre-electioncampaign.

Further,ithasbeenreportedthatHarjit,orHajest,Singh,whowasdodgingadeportationorderfromCICpursuanttowhichaCanada-widewarranthadbeenissuedforhisarrest,regularlydeliveredpizzatotheMinister’scampaignofficeinToronto.ItisallegedthathespokemorethanoncetoseniorSgrostaffersdisclosinghisstatusandaskingforassistancefromtheMinister.NoneoftheMinister’sstaffers,workersorassociatesatanytimenotifiedtheauthoritiesofthisman’swhereabouts.

AnditisallegedthatSongDaeRi,aNorthKoreandefectorwhowasseekinglandedimmigrantstatusinCanada,wasalsoactiveinMsSgro’scampaignoffice.

APPE

ND

IX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONERII-2

TheseallegationsraiseseriousquestionsastowhethertheSgrocampaignattractedindividualsseekingspecialpreferencefromtheMinister,andwhetherspecialpreferencewas,infact,extendedinoneformoranother.

Finally,itisallegedthattheMinister’spoliticalstaffworkedontheMinister’sre-electioncampaignwhilechargingtheirexpensestotheMinister’sOttawaofficebudget,contrarytoTreasuryBoardguidelines.ItalsoseemsthatherthenChiefofStaff,IanLaird,wasonleaveofabsenceatthetimehegaveinstructionsfortheissuanceofthepermittoBalaican.ThisraisesquestionsastowhetherMsSgrohadpeoplethatwereonthepayrollofherMinister’sofficeworkingonherpoliticalcampaign,andwhetheroneofherstaffmemberswhowasnolongeronthepayrollwasinfactcontinuingtoinstructdepartmentofficialsonbehalfoftheMinister.

Shouldtheseallegationsprovetobefounded,MinisterSgrowouldhavebreachedthefollowingMinisterialobligationssetoutintheConflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders:

• EthicalStandards

(1)Publicofficeholdersshallactwithhonestyandupholdthehighestethicalstandardssothatpublicconfidenceandtrustintheintegrity,objectivityandimpartialityofgovernmentareconservedandenhanced.

• PublicScrutiny

(2)Publicofficeholdershaveanobligationtoperformtheirofficialdutiesandarrangetheirprivateaffairsinamannerthatwillbeartheclosestpublicscrutiny,anobligationthatisnotfullydischargedbysimplyactingwithinthelaw.

• DecisionMaking

(3)Publicofficeholders,infulfillingtheirofficialdutiesandresponsibilities,shallmakedecisionsinthepublicinterestandwithregardtothemeritsofeachcase.

• PreferentialTreatment

(7)Publicofficeholdersshallnotusetheirpositionofofficetoassistprivateentitiesorpersonswherethiswouldresultinpreferentialtreatmenttoanyperson.

Iwouldrespectfullyrequestthatyourinquiryintothismatterinclude,butnotbelimitedto,discussionswith:

• anycivilservantsintheTorontoandOttawaofficesofCitizenshipandImmigrationwhomay havedealtwithanyoftheaforementionedindividualsorwithotherswhomaycometoyour attentioninthecourseofyourinquiry;

APP

EN

DIX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER II-3

• anyoftheMinister’selectioncampaignworkersandstaffwhohaveanyknowledgetouching uponthemattersrelatingtotheinquiry,andinparticularthoseindividualswhospokewithMr ScottReid;

• MrScottReid,DirectorofCommunicationsinthePrimeMinister’sOffice;

• anypresentandformerstaffoftheMinisterwhohaveanyknowledgetouchinguponthese matters.

ThefairnessandintegrityofCanada’simmigrationsystemisoftheutmostimportance,notonlytoCanadians,butalsotothousandsofhonestapplicantswaitinginthequeue.Eventheslightestindicationthatoursystemisopentopoliticalinterferenceandpreferentialtreatmentunderminesitscredibility.Thereforethisinquiryisofvitalsignificanceforourcountryandtomaintaintherespectoftheinternationalcommunity.

ThisisanewprocessforbothyourofficeandforParliamentarians.However,Ihavecompleteconfidencethatyourofficewillactthoroughlyandexpeditiouslytofulfillthisrequestandsetahighstandardforfuturesuchinquiries.

Pleasecontactmeshouldyourequireanythingfurtherinorderforthismattertogoforward.

Yourstruly,

DianeAblonczy,M.P.Calgary-NoseHill

APP

EN

DIX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER III-1

APPENDIX III

December14,2004

MrBernardShapiroEthicsCommissioner66SlaterStreet,22ndFloorOttawa,ONK1P5H1

DearCommissionerShapiro:

Re:AdditionalRequestforInquiryPursuanttoSection72.08(1)oftheParliamentofCanadaAct

ThisisfurthertomyletterofNovember20,2004,whichwasaformalRequestforInquiryPursuanttoSection72.08(1)oftheParliament of Canada Act.

SinceNovember20th,additionalallegationsrelatingtotheactionsoftheMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigrationandofmembersofherstaffhavebeenraised.Ithereforerequestthattheinquiryopenedpursuanttomysaidletterbeexpandedtoincludethefollowing:

1. AllegationsthattheMinisterofferedspecialaccesstotwoandpossiblymoreownersofstrip clubstodiscusswithherChiefofStaff,IhorWons,and/orotherMinisterialstaffwhetherthe MinistermightbeabletoassisttheminbringingadditionalstrippersintoCanada.Thetwo publiclyconfirmedon-sitevisitsweretoTerryKoumoudouros,co-owneroftheHouse ofLancasterandtoPeterPsihogios,oftheAirportStripClubandVice-PresidentoftheAdult EntertainmentAssociationofCanada.

2. IthasbeenconfirmedthattheMinisteraccepteda$5,000campaigndonationfroman individualnamedinherelectionreturnasSadiNaseer,onbehalfofMohsinSheikh,contraryto theCanada Elections Act,inviolationofSection3(1)oftheConflict of interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders.

3. Mylegislativeassistant,JasonValentin,onNovember17th,receivedatelephonecallfromthe Minister’sDirectorofParliamentaryAffairs,MarcKhouri.Inthatconversationanimplied threatwasmadethattheMinisterwouldnotlookfavourablyonanyfuturerequeststhatImight makeonbehalfofconstituents.AttachedisMrValentin’smemowhichwaswrittenthatsame daysettingouthisbestrecollectionofthisconversation.Iwouldpointoutthattheonerequest IhavemadetotheMinisterinthepastwasdirectlyreferredtointhecallandhasbeenraisedby theMinisterintheHouseandinmediainterviewsonseveraloccasions.MycolleagueM.P.

APPE

ND

IX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONERIII-2

PatMartin,theMemberforWinnipegCentre,hasalsostatedthathereceivedasimilarcalland thathebelievesthata“thinlyveiled”threatwasmadetohimalso.

4. M.P.PatMartinalsoallegedthattheMinister’sOfficeprovidedhimwithdetailsofcampaign workerAlinaBalaican’sfile.ThismayhavecontravenedthePrivacy Act.

5. OnDecember8th,TheHonourableStephenHarper,LeaderoftheOppositionandMember forCalgarySouthwest,requestedthefollowinginformation:“The immigration minister told her Liberal colleagues that she would not issue ministerial permits during the election and then she turned around, went behind their backs and handed out at least a dozen permits to her own political donors and campaign workers. This is my question for the Prime Minister. Does he know how many ministerial permits the minister handed out to her riding and supporters during the election campaign? (Hansard, December 8, 2004).

TheMinistersaidearlierintheHouse:“MrSpeaker,Iwasgoingtobringabookwithme, whichisthick,fullofalltherequestsIgetfromallmembersoftheHouse,lotsofthembeing fromtheLeaderoftheOpposition,fromtheHouseleaderandfromtheoppositioncritic.Iget requestseveryday,yesterdayincluded.WhenIleavethisHouseandgobacktothelobby,there isusuallysomebodyfromthemember’ssidewaitingthere.”(Hansard,November19,2004)

InthedocumenttabledbytheMinisterinresponsetoquestionsabouthowmanytemporary residentpermits[TRPs]shehaspersonallyissued,recommendedorconcurredinthedecisionto issue,theMinistertoldtheHousethattherewasnorecordofTRPsissuedbyriding.Thisis contradictedbythefactthatsheappearstoknowofrequestsmadebyindividualmembersand thatatonepointshereferredtoaMinisterialbinderofsuchrequests.Keepingcompleterecords ofTRPspersonallyissuedbytheMinister,andwhichcouldbebrokendownbyridingorinany otherway,surelywouldbeanexpectedandstandardbusinesspractice.Iwouldaskthatyou inquireandspecificallyadvisemeonthisissue.

6. IthasbeenallegedthataformerstaffmemberoftheMinister’sisunderinvestigationfor securityreasons.TheMinisterhasdeniedthisintheHouse.HastheMinister,heroffice,orthe GovernmentofCanadabeenethicallycompromisedinanywayinthisspecificmatter?

7. OnnumerousoccasionstheMinisterhasbothdirectlystatedandclearlyimpliedthatshe requestedafullinquirybyyourofficeofallallegationsrelatingtoquestionableactivitiesby herselfandherstaff.ThisiscontradictedbyyourOffice,whichhasstatedthattheMinister’s requestwasonlyforprivateadviceregardingherissuingofaMinister’sPermittoAlinaBalaican. ItthereforeappearsthattheMinisterhasmisledtheHouseandtheCanadianpubliconthetrue natureandextentofyourOffice’sinvolvementinthismatterattherequestoftheMinister.I wouldaskthatyourOfficereviewtheMinister’sstatementsinthisregardandprovidean opinionastowhethertheyhavebeenmisleadingtotheHouseandthepublicandhavetherefore violatedSection3(1)oftheCode.

APP

EN

DIX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER III-3

Shouldanyofthesefurtherallegationsprovetobefounded,MinisterSgrowouldhavebreachedthefollowingMinisterialobligationssetoutintheConflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders:

3.Everypublicofficeholdershallconformtothefollowingprinciples:

• EthicalStandards

(1)Publicofficeholdersshallactwithhonestyandupholdthehighestethicalstandardssothatpublicconfidenceandtrustintheintegrity,objectivityandimpartialityofgovernmentareconservedandenhanced.

• PublicScrutiny

(2)Publicofficeholdershaveanobligationtoperformtheirofficialdutiesandarrangetheirprivateaffairsinamannerthatwillbeartheclosestpublicscrutiny,anobligationthatisnotfullydischargedbysimplyactingwithinthelaw.

• DecisionMaking

(3)Publicofficeholders,infulfillingtheirofficialdutiesandresponsibilities,shallmakedecisionsinthepublicinterestandwithregardtothemeritsofeachcase.

• PreferentialTreatment

(7)Publicofficeholdersshallnotusetheirpositionofofficetoassistprivateentitiesorpersonswherethiswouldresultinpreferentialtreatmenttoanyperson.

InlightoftheseriousnatureofalloftheseallegationsandofhowtheyhavealreadyimpactedCanadabothathomeandabroad,itisessentialthatallofthequestionsthathavebeenraisedabouttheMinisterandherstaffbefullyinvestigatedbyyourofficeandthefindingsreportedtoParliamentandtothepublic.ThankyouforyourassistanceandfortheimportantrolethatyouplayinensuringMinisterialintegrityandaccountabilityintheParliamentofCanada.

Pleasecontactmeshouldyourequireanythingfurtherinorderfortheinquiryintotheseadditionalmatterstogoforward.

Yourstruly,

DianeAblonczy,M.P.Calgary-NoseHill

APP

EN

DIX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER IV-1

APPENDIX IV

REPORT TO THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER

ON THE LETTER OF DECEMBER 14, 2004

FROM

MS DIANE ABLONCzY

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR CALGARY-NOSE HILL

OnDecember142004,MsDianeAblonczy,MemberofParliamentforCalgary-NoseHillwrotealettertotheEthicsCommissioner,requestinganinquirypursuanttoSection72.08(1)oftheParliament of Canada Act.Theletterrequestedareviewofaseriesofallegations.

APPE

ND

IX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONERIV-2

Theobjectofthisreportistoreviewallegations3,5,and7andtoprovideanopinionastowhether:

a) eachallegationisrelatedtoamatterofprivilegeandshouldbedealtwitheitherexclusivelyor otherwisebytheHouseofCommons,aParliamentaryCommitteeortheSpeaker;b) eachallegationfallswithinthejurisdiction(exclusiveorotherwise)oftheHouseofCommons,a ParliamentaryCommitteeorSpeaker,indicatingthebasisuponwhichitfallswithintheir jurisdiction;c) thereisaseparateHouseofCommonspractice,procedure,orconvention(exclusiveor otherwise)forthehandlingofallegationsofthisnature.

ThisopiniononMsAblonczy’sallegationsisbasedstrictlyonproceduralprinciplesandpracticegoverningthetheoryandimplementationofparliamentaryprivilegeinrelationtothefunctioningoftheHouseofCommonsandtheperformanceandconductofitsMembers.Theopinion,therefore,doesnotraiseissuesofconstitutionallaworlex parliamenti(theLawofParliament).Anylegalissuesarelefttocompetentauthoritiestoargue1.

ParliamentaryPrivilegeInordertohaveabettercomprehensionofthevariousissuesraisedintheallegationsofMsAblonczy,itisnecessarytoprecedethereviewwithanoverviewofthenatureandnecessityofparliamentaryprivilege.AdescriptionofthespecificrightoftheHouseofCommonstoregulateitsowninternalaffairs,includingthepowertodisciplineitsMembers,andsomecommentsonwhoaretheguardiansofparliamentaryprivilegearealsorequired.

Thephrase“parliamentaryprivilege”hasaveryspecificmeaninginthelexiconofproceduraltermsusedinlegislaturesundertheWestminstermodel.Itdoesnotmeanthatlegislatorsarea“privilegedclass”andmustbetreatedassuch.Sincetheparliamentaryworldhasnotyetdecidedtomodernizeitsjargon,thephrase“parliamentaryprivilege”,withitsimpressivehistoricalbackgroundandkeyimportance,remainsandcarrieswithitaverypositiveconnotationandpurposeinmodernparliaments.

Whatis“parliamentaryprivilege”?Itreferssimplytotherightsandimmunitiesnecessaryforalegislatureasadistinctbody(suchtheHouseofCommonsofCanada),anditsMembers,whoarerepresentativesofthepeople,tofunctionandcarryouttheirdutiesandresponsibilities.ItalsoreferstothepowersthatlegislaturespossesstoprotectthemselvesandtheirMembersfromundueinterferenceinthefulfillmentoftheirfunctions.However,“privileges”arenotforpersonalgainoradvantage.Asstated,in1967,byaSelectCommitteeoftheBritishHouseofCommons,parliamentaryprivileges“arenottheprerogativeofMembersintheirpersonalcapacities,(...)theyareclaimedandenjoyedbytheHouseinitscorporatecapacityandbyitsMembersonbehalfofthecitizenswhomtheyrepresent.”2Electorshaveindeedtherighttoexpectthattherepresentativestheyhavechosenbeprotectedfromanykindofimproperpressure.

Thelongandhard-foughtbattlefortheindependenceoftheHouseofCommonsandtherights

1ThestatutoryauthorityrelatingtoCanadianparliamentaryprivilegecanbefoundinSection18oftheConstitutionofCanadaandSection4oftheParliamentofCanadaAct.2UnitedKingdom,HouseofCommons,SelectCommitteeonParliamentaryPrivilege,1967,Report,(reprinted1971),p.vii,para.12.

APP

EN

DIX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER IV-3

necessaryforitsproperfunctioningcontinuesstilltodayeachtimethereisanattemptbyanoutsidebodytousurpevenafractionoftherightsandimmunitiesofalegislature.ParliamentaryprivilegesforitselfanditsMembersaretobedecidedbythelegislatureandnotbyanyoutsidebodyorcourt.Forthisreason,theHousemustalwaysassumefullyitsroletoserve,throughitsSpeaker,astheguardianoftherights,immunitiesandprivilegesofitsMembers.WhenraisedontheflooroftheHouse,adisregardfororanattackonanyoftheserightsandimmunities,byanyindividualorauthority,iscalleda“breachofprivilege”andispunishableascontempt.Thelegislativebodyistheonlyonecompetenttofindthatacontemptorabreachofprivilegehasoccurred.Ontheotherhand,itisalsopossibleforalegisla-tivebodytodecideformallybyresolutionnottoclaimorapplyprivilegeswhichhavepreviouslybeenclaimed,butdoingsoisalwaysatsomegraveperil.3

Asconfirmedbythehistoryofparliamentarygovernment,theSpeakeroftheHouseofCommonscarriestheenormousresponsibilitytoactastheguardianoftherightsandprivilegesofMembersandthelegislativebodyasaninstitution.AttheopeningofanewHousetheSpeaker,chosenbyhispeers,claimsfromtheGovernorGeneralthetraditionalrightsandprivilegesoftheassembly.TheSpeakerisalsotheauthoritytodecidewhetherornotanysetoffactsamountprima facie(atfirstglance),toabreachofprivilege,beforeitissubmittedtotheHousetodecidewhetheracontemptorabreachofprivilegehasoccurred.

RighttoRegulateOwnInternalAffairs

AmongtherightsandpowersoftheHouseofCommonsasacollectivityisthefundamentalrightofthelegislativebodytoregulateitsinternalaffairs,freefrominterferencefromtheCrown,theexecutive,thecourtsandthepublic.ThisisprobablythemostfundamentalrightfortheHouse,afterfreedomofspeechenjoyedbyitsMembers.Regulatingitsowninternalaffairsisawidelyrecognizedright,“onewithoutwhichthelegislativebodycouldnotupholditsdignityandefficiency”4;“oneofthemostsignificantattributesofanindependentlegislativeinstitution”5;“abasicruleofanelectedassembly”6.Inthatsense,thejurisdictionofalegislativeinstitution,likethatofacourt,isnotsubjecttoappeal.

IndeliveringthemajorityopinioninthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtofCanadainNew Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker (Donahoe) of the House of Assembly),McLachlinJ.hadthistosayinregardtotheindependenceofthelegislativebody,andtotherightsnecessarytothefunctioningofthatbody:

“Ourdemocraticgovernmentconsistsofseveralbranches:theCrown,asrepresentedbythe GovernorGeneralandtheprovincialcounterpartsofthatoffice;thelegislativebody;the executive;andthecourts.Itisfundamentaltotheworkingofgovernmentasawholethatall thesepartsplaytheirproperrole.Itisequallyfundamentalthatnooneofthemoverstepits bounds,thateachshowproperdeferenceforthelegitimatesphereofactivityoftheother.”7

3House of Commons Procedure and Practice,editedbyRobertMarleauandCamilleMontpetit,HouseofCommons,Ottawa;Chenelière/McGraw-Hill,Montréal-Toronto,2000,pp.54-6.4Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,2nded.,Maingot,J.P.Joseph,HouseofCommonsandMcGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,1997p.293.5Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,2nded.,Maingot,J.P.Joseph,HouseofCommonsandMcGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,1997p.183.6Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,2nded.,Maingot,J.P.Joseph,HouseofCommonsandMcGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,1997p.316.7Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,2nded.,Maingot,J.P.Joseph,HouseofCommonsandMcGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,1997p.319.

APPE

ND

IX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONERIV-4

Thelegislativeinstitution’srighttoregulateitsowninternalaffairsincludestheright,intermsofitsmembership,tosetdownrulesandregulationsaffectingtheconductandresponsibilitiesofitsMembers.ThejurisdictionoveritsMembersis“absoluteandexclusive.”8

PowertoDiscipline

TheHouseofCommon’srighttoregulateitsowninternalaffairsalsoincludestherightandpowertodisciplineitsownMembersandtopunishthoseMembersguiltyofdisgracefulconduct.Thepunishmentcanrangefromareprimand,tosuspensionfordisregardingtheauthorityoftheChair,toexpulsion.Infact,theHousemayexclude,suspendorexpelaMemberforanyreason,because,inthefinalanalysis,itisaninternalmatter.ThepowertoexpelisnotconfinedtooffencescommittedbyaMemberasMemberorduringasessionofParliament,butextendstoallcaseswheretheoffenceissuchas,inthejudgmentoftheHouse,torendertheMemberunfitforparliamentaryduties.[...]...it(theHouseofCommons)retainsitsrighttodecideuponthequalificationsofanyofitsMemberstositandvoteintheHouse.”9

OPINION

EachallegationmadebyMsAblonczyisreviewedseparatelyagainstthecriterialistedintheopeningparagraph.

Allegationno.3

“3. My Legislative assistant, Jason Valentin, on November 17th, received a telephone call form the Minister’s Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Marc Khouri. In that conversation an implied threat was made that the Minister would not look favourably on any future requests that I might make on behalf of constituents. Attached is Mr Valentin’s memo which was written the same day setting out his best recollection of this conversation. I would point out that the one request that I have made of the Minister in the past was directly referred to in the call and has been raised by the Minister in the House and in media interviews on several occasions. My colleague M.P. Pat martin, the Member for Winnipeg Centre, has also stated that he received a similar call and that he believes that a “thinly veiled” threat was made to him also.”

a) Isallegationno.3relatedtoamatterofprivilegeandshouldbedealtwitheitherexclusivelyor otherwisebytheHouseofCommons,aParliamentaryCommitteeortheSpeaker?

Yes.TheallegationimpliesthattheMember’sofficewasphonedasaconsequenceofquestionsraisedinQuestionPeriodandresultedinsomeformofintimidationofbecauseofthemannerinwhichtheMemberwasdischargingherdutiesintheHouse.Thisallegationfallsintothecategoryofrights,immunitiesandprivilegescalledcontemptsoftheHouse,morespecificallytheintimidationofMembers.

Therearepotentiallytwoprivilegemattersinthisallegation.TheallegedactionsoftheMinister’s 8Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,2nded.,Maingot,J.P.Joseph,HouseofCommonsandMcGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,1997p.1819Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,2nded.,Maingot,J.P.Joseph,HouseofCommonsandMcGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,1997p.211

APP

EN

DIX

OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER IV-�

DirectorofParliamentaryAffairs,whocouldbefoundincontemptforintimidationofamemberandtheconductoftheMinisterifherDirectorofParliamentaryAffairswasactingonherbehalfandwithherknowledge. In1984SpeakerFrancisruledonsimilarpoint:

“AthreatemanatingfromanygovernmentdepartmentorpubliccorporationtowithholdinformationorcooperationfromaMemberofParliamentwouldundoubtedlyhinderthatMemberinthefulfillmentofhisorherParliamentarydutiesandthereforewouldconstituteabreachofprivilege…ItisthereforetheviewoftheChairthatanactwhichamountstoaformofintimidationdoesnotneedtobedirectedattheMemberinpersoninordertoconstituteanoffenceintermsofprivilege”10

b) Doesallegationno.3fallwithinthejurisdiction(exclusiveorotherwise)oftheHouseof Commons,aParliamentaryCommittee,orSpeaker,indicatingthebasisuponitfallswithin theirjurisdiction?

Yes.LikeaCourtonlytheHouseofCommonshasjurisdictionindeterminingwhatoffencesoffendsitsdignityorauthority.

“TherearehoweverotheraffrontsagainstthedignityandauthorityofParliament,whichmaynotfallwithinoneofthespecificallydefinedprivileges.ThustheHousealsoclaimstherighttopunish,asacontempt,anyactionwhich,thoughnotabreachofaspecificprivilegetendstoobstructorimpedesanyMemberorOfficeroftheHouseinthedischargeoftheirduties”.11 SpeakerSauvéina1980rulingmadethefollowingcomment:

“…whileourprivilegesaredefined,contemptofthehousehasnolimits.Whennewwaysarefoundtointerferewithour

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE › en › publications › Documents... · 062005-02E. THE SGRO INQUIRY...

Documents

Transcript of FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE › en › publications › Documents... · 062005-02E. THE SGRO INQUIRY...