Charlie Angus Writes to Senate on Need for Accountability

July 4, 2011

Jean T. Fournier
Senate Ethics Officer

 

Thomas D’Arcy McGee Building
90 Sparks St., Room 526
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5B4
Re: Need for raising the ethical standards of the Senate

 

Dear Mr. Fournier,

It has been nearly four years since I first wrote to you in December of 2007 suggesting the Senate address some of the more egregious gaps in its conflict of interest guidelines. Unfortunately, no steps have been taken by the Senate to fix its ethics rules. In fact, Canada’s unaccountable Senate continues to lag far behind the norms accepted by all manner of public officials – from rural school board trustees to Members of Parliament.

In the four years since I wrote you, we have had the dismal spectacle of numerous senators being charged or convicted of criminal activities. The latest charges against Senator Mac Harb are particularly troubling because it appears he was acting as both a Senator and a hired lobbyist for the oil and gas company Niko Resources. The company defended its hiring of Senator Harb by stating they were told this behavior had passed all the approvals of the Senate’s Ethics Committee.

While I leave it to the police to determine the guilt or innocence of Senator Harb, I do feel it necessary to challenge the extraordinary loopholes in the Senate’s Ethic code.

First, let’s compare the protocols surrounding the conflict of interest declarations between elected Members of Parliament and unelected members of the Senate. If the public wishes to view an MP’s conflict declaration, they can simply click on the website of the Ethics Commissioner. In the case of the Senate however, all declarations are kept hidden in a locked filing cabinet in Ottawa.

The secrecy surrounding Senate declarations raises numerous red flags given the fact that many senators sit as paid officers of key corporate interests including: financial institutions and corporations involved in oil and gas, telecommunications, private health care delivery and resource extraction. Needless to say, opportunities for Senators to put their private interests ahead of the public’s interest are legion.

In your letter of December 5, 2007, you pointed out that that Senate Code of Conduct forbids Senators from attempting to use their position of influence to further his or her private interests, or those of a family member. While this is true, Section 15 of the same Code renders such well-meaning language meaningless:

15. (1) A Senator who has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she, or a family member, has a private interest that might be affected by a matter that is before the Senate may participate in debate on that matter, provided that an oral declaration is made on the record prior to each intervention.

(2) A Senator who has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she, or a family member, has a private interest that might be affected by a matter that is before a committee of which the Senator is a member may participate in debate on that matter, provided that a declaration is first made orally on the record.

It seems incompatible on the one hand to say that Senators may not use their position to further their private interests and then allow them to review legislation or participate in debates where their financial investments may be involved. For example, when the Senate was killing climate change legislation that had been passed by the democratically elected House of Commons, Senators did not have to recuse themselves if they were on the payroll of the gas and oil industry.

The recent spate of criminal charges against various senators comes at a time of increasing public discussion about the need to reform the Senate. Unfortunately, the institution refuses to take even the most basic steps towards accountability. Time and time again, we have had egregious abuses of the public trust. And yet, Senators have chosen time and time again to remain aloof and dismissive of the most basic obligation of public office – the need to be accountable to the public.

The question must be asked: how many senators need to be charged before either the Senate agrees to reform or the public says “enough.”

As long as the Senate still exists, it is incumbent on Senators and yourself to establish rules that show Canadians their public officials are operating above reproach. Therefore, I am asking what steps you will take to establish credible conflict of interest rules that ensure members of the Upper Chamber put the public interest above lobbying for personal financial gain.

I look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

 

Sincerely,
Charlie Angus, MP
Official Opposition Critic
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics