In response to a promise made in the Liberal Party’s 1993 Red Book the office of the Ethics Commissioner was created by the newly elected government in 1994. Howard Wilson, appointed by then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien became Canada’s first ethics watchdog. Wilson was a counsellor rather than a commissioner. He had no independence. appointed by the prime minister, Wilson reported to and was responsible to the Office of the Prime Minister and critics railed at the fact that the person in charge of the ethics of cabinet lacked even a scintilla of independence. Chrétien defended the system saying that he (Chrétien) was ultimately accountable for his actions and the actions of his ministers and so the fact that Wilson was not independent was not an important consideration.
after his first few investigations, it became apparent that Wilson was bending over backwards to find his political masters free from any ethical lapses and he was quickly labelled as a "lapdog". The critics insisted that the country needed a totally independent ethics counsellor; an officer of Parliament that reported directly to the House of Commons, not the prime minister.
In 2004 the rules changed and Bernard Shapiro became Canada’s second ethics honcho. Unlike Wilson, Shapiro is an officer of Parliament and reports to that body. It wasn’t long after Shapiro began his duties that his first major ethics investigation commenced. Former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Judy Sgro, was accused of giving a woman a temporary resident visa in exchange for working on the Minister’s re-election campaign. Shapiro’s first act was to retain the services of a large Liberal-friendly law firm to assist him in his task and it didn’t take long before Shapiro was accused of lacking independence from the governing Liberal Party.
after leaking a letter that pretty well exonerated the former minister, Shapiro issued his $170,000 report that was strangely but appropriately entitled, "Many shades of grey". On the main allegation, Shapiro found that with all the conflicting evidence there was no clear evidence that Sgro had broken the rules. The tenor of Shapiro’s findings was reminiscent of former U.S. president Harry Truman’s economists. a frustrated Truman once demanded a one-handed economist because he was tired of being told "on the one hand…but on the other hand…"
after our latest political scandal, Grewalgate, emerged Shapiro refused to investigate Tim Murphy, Prime Minister Paul Martin’s chief of staff, for his role on the taped conversations concerning any reward that Tory member Germant Grewal and his MP wife might have received for supporting the Liberal government on a motion of non confidence. Shapiro’s reasons for not investigating Murphy,that he is not a minister, sounds valid, but Shapiro showed little interest in investigating Murphy’s direct boss, the prime minister. In light of his work on the Sgro allegations, any report on Martin would likely end up being as wishy washy as the one that has just been released.
Bernard Shapiro’s office, unlike that of Howard Wilson’s, has teeth. But instead of becoming a lapdog like Wilson was, Shapiro has become a pit lapdog, more powerful but still the same species. NDP MP Ed Broadbent has made a motion to have Shapiro fired from his post for incompetence. But the real issue should be whether we need to have an ethics commissioner in the first place.
Chrétien was right all along. The responsibility for the conduct of the prime minister and his or her cabinet rests with the prime minister. Members of Cabinet should not be able to refuse to account to the electorate for their actions by hiding behind an investigation by an ethics commissioner. The Sgro allegations and subsequent report accomplished very little other than take the attention away from Judy Sgro and Martin who appointed and defended her and focus them on the ethics commissioner and his competence or lack thereof. Increasingly Ministers rise in the House of Commons and refuse to discuss their actions because those same actions are under some sort of investigation. The current system accomplishes nothing except to allow ministers of the crown to be less accountable to the electorate. Ministers that are under a cloud can remain in office, not have to account to themselves and simply wait for a report that will probably condone or excuse their actions.
The prime minister and ministers themselves should be accountable for their actions. If they are found to have acted unethically pressure to have them removed from their posts should be kept up. and if that fails, they can be removed by the voters in the next election.
Of course it doesn’t help that in Canada we gladly reelect thieves and money launderers. But let’s end this sham that an ethics commissioner actually accomplishes something.