Office of the Bureau du Ethics Commissioner commissaire à l’éthique
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Ottawa, June 21, 2005 PRESS RELEASE
THE SGRO INQUIRY
On November 22 2004, I received a request from Ms. Diane Ablonczy, Member for Calgary -Nose Hill for an examination into various issues related to the conduct of the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Honorable Judy Sgro. On December 14, I received a further request from Ms. Ablonczy, one which widened the scope of the original inquiry to include thirteen separate allegations. Today, six months later, I am issuing my report.
In this particular inquiry, there was considerable disagreement over the facts. As a result, I found it necessary to both gather information through subpoena from forty individuals and examine thousands of documents and email records, primarily from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Report provides a brief reference to the legislative mandate of the Ethics Commissioner, describes in some detail the process of the Inquiry as well as both its particular context and its associated costs. The Report’s appendices add such background information as (i) the initial letters from Ms. Diane Ablonczy, MP, (ii) a listing of the individuals interviewed and particular documents examined, (iii) a report commissioned from RDM Consulting ( i.e. Robert Marleau, former Clerk of the House of Commons) with respect to matters of parliamentary privilege and the mandate of the Ethics Commissioner, and (iv) the letter written in May to the Honorable Judy Sgro, MP as tabled in the House of Commons on May 10, in response to her request for confidential advice.
Finally, the Report provides my findings and conclusions to those of the thirteen allegations that can be considered within my legislative mandate.
The Report is being released in electronic form and is available immediately on my website at www.parl.gc.ca/oec-bce. In addition, a limited number of printed copies will be made available today to parliamentarians and the media from the parliamentary distribution centers. Finally, additional printed copies will be made available from my Office later this week.
I will not conduct any interviews with, or make any further comments to the media.
Bernard J. Shapiro
- 30 -
Office of the Ethics Commissioner – Parliament of Canada – Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Telephone: 613-995-0721 – Fax: 613-995-7308 – Web: http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec-bce Office of the Ethics Commissioner Bureau du commissaire à l’éthique
THE SGRO INQUIRY MANY SHADES OF GREY
BERNARD J. SHAPIRO June 200 ETHICS COMMISSIONER Office of the Ethics Commissioner Bureau du commissaire à l’éthique
THE SGRO INQUIRY MANY SHADES OF GREY
This publication is available upon request in multiple formats.
For additional copies of this publication, please contact:
Office of the Ethics Commissioner Parliament of Canada 66 Slater Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 995-0721 Fax: (613) 995-7308 Email: [email protected]
This publication is also available electronically on the World Wide Web at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec-bce
Permission to Reproduce Except as otherwise specifically noted, the information in this publication may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the Office of the Ethics Commissioner is identified as the source institution; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, the Office of the Ethics Commissioner.
For permission to reproduce the information in this publication for commercial redistribution, please email: [email protected]
ISBN 0-9738513-0-9 062005-02E BERNARD J. SHAPIRO June 200 ETHICS COMMISSIONER OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER nur 5 5 TheSgro Inquiry (ii) Legislative Background –OfficeoftheEthics Commissioner (i) tis 12 11 10 9 9 Allegations:Ethics (v) Allegations:Special Cases (iv) Allegations:Other Agencies (iii) Allegations:Parliamentary Privilege Preliminary Comment (ii) (i) TABLE OFCONTENTS T S T T I T ntroduction ummary ummary he he he he he he he he P F C C indings rocess osts onte S
tatements x t 6 9 8 7
5 20 THE SGRO INQUIRY
OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER May 2,2005lettertotheHonourable Judy Sgro, MPastabledintheHouse of CommonsonMay 10,inresponse toherrequest forconfidentialadvice. IX Statistics onmaterialexamined VIII Analysisofrelated Question Period issues,November 15toDecember 14,2004 VII Investigation expensereport Materials examinedundersubpoena VI (b) underoath Individuals interviewed (a) V RDMConsultingReport IV December 14,2004letterfrom MsD.Ablonczy, MP III November 20,2004letterfrom MsD.Ablonczy, MP II Bill C-4:Selected sections I APPENDICES iii THE SGRO INQUIRY
OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER my view, defeattheintentandpurposeoflegislation. satisfied thatnotusingtheinformationgathered undersection72.1 inpreparing this report would,in Legal advicewassoughtfrom anumberofsources, andaftercareful considerationofthis advice,Iam out thefacts” alongwithhisanalysisinfinalreport. pursuant tosection72.1wasconsistentwith72.08(4)requiring theEthics Commissionerto“set section requiring confidentialitywithrespect todocumentsproduced and/orevidencetakenunderoath available tothepublic,thuseffectively putting asideitsconfidentialnature. the Ethics Commissioner. Subsequently, theMinister madeacommitmenttomaketheadvicereceived informed theHouse ofCommonsduringQuestion Period thattheMinister hadrequested advicefrom section 72.07(c)ofthe then Minister ofCitizenship andImmigration, askingforconfidentialadvice,asprovided forin On November 15,2004,I,asEthics Commissioner, received aletterfrom theHonourable Judy Sgro, (ii) TheSgro Inquiry between twosectionsofthe As thisreport wasbeingprepared forprinting,thematterastowhetherthere wasacontradiction relevant sectionsofChapter7theStatutes ofCanada,2004are attachedasAppendix Itothisreport. witnesses bothtogive testimonyunderoathandtoproduce anydocumentsdeemednecessary. The provides outsuchanexaminationorinquiry, that,incarrying theEthics Commissionercansummon response toarequest from amemberoftheSenate ortheHouse ofCommons.Thelegislationalso examining theconductofaministerCrown, secretary, aministerofstateorparliamentary in In addition,withrespect topublicofficeholders,themandateofEthics Commissionerincludes Governor-in-Council appointees). secretaries andother office holders(i.e.ministers,deputyministersofstate,parliamentary the conflictofinterest codesthatapply(i)tomembersoftheHouse ofCommons,and(ii)topublic responsibilityThe particular oftheEthics Commissionerislimitedprimarilytotheadministrationof parliamentarian, ministerorpublicofficeholder, orwithafederalgovernment oragency. department with theauthoritytorespond tocitizens whoare experiencewitha dissatisfiedwiththeirparticular to allareas ofethicalbehaviour:theEthics Commissionercannotbeconsidered ageneralombudsperson Regardless ofpublicperception, themandateorauthorityofEthics Commissionerdoesnotextend Canada, 2004. Acts inConsequence An Act toAmend theParliament ofCanada Act (Ethics Commissioner andSenate Ethics Officer)andother The OfficeoftheEthics Commissionerwascreated through theadoptionby Parliament ofBill C-4, (i) Legislative Background –OfficeoftheEthics Commissioner INTRODUCTION . ThebillwasassentedtoonMarch 31,2004,becomingChapter7oftheStatutes of Parliament ofCanada Act Parliament ofCanada Act . Thatsameday, theMinister’s Parliamentary Secretary arose. Thequestionwaswhetheraparticular THE SGRO INQUIRY
Conflict of Interest Interest Conflict of V) and they received, OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER .” VIII. Ladner Gervais LLP to conduct the Borden of the law firm Scott and Lisa Micucci W. and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders Office for Public Code and Post-Employment emerged in the various allegations that have the majority of the conflict of interest years, recent In and the task of the ethics officer has been to facts, upon” begun with “agreed of Canada have provinces indicated that an individual was or was not in compliance with assess the extent to which these facts that the allegations it was immediately obvious this case, however, code or legislation. In the relevant be in dispute. As there probably that would themselves to facts letters related contained in the Ablonczy to conduct the received were these requests in my office at the time insufficient staff resources were with Commissioner I contracted in my capacity as Ethics that would be necessary, fact-finding exercise counsels David THE PROCESS D. Marleau) (Robert addition, I contracted with RDM Consulting In fact-finding stage of the inquiry. certainto advise me on the extent to which of the allegations made could be understood as properly Commissioner. within the jurisdiction of the Ethics as Appendix 2005 and it is attached in mid-January RDM Consulting was received from The report this from The lawyers Ladner Gervais took somewhat LLP report longer. The Borden IV to this report. firm interviewed, listed in Appendix under oath, fortynames are individuals (their examination. on received was, however, sets of documents. Their main fact-finding report subpoena, several through the basis of this oath. On 18, 2005, along with the transcriptions of the evidence taken under February including (i) the issuance of my office, conducted by material, further and very analyses were extensive also listed in Appendix names are a small number of additional subpoenas to selected individuals (their Canada, and (iii) Immigration and V), Citizenship documents from (ii) the examination of numerous staff. The scope and numbers of particular members of the former Minister’s the e-mail correspondence outlined in Appendix of these materials are for Calgary- of Parliament the Member a letter from received 22, 2004, I on November later, week One into: I inquire that requesting Ablonczy, Diane the Honourable Hill, Nose has fully observed Sgro, the rules Judy and Immigration, of Citizenship “…whether the Minister as set out in the of the Crown for Ministers Minister the Prime established by the inquiry II, which initiated is attached as Appendix a copy of which this of which was this letter, It is the result. report (Appendix Ablonczy Ms a second letter from 14, 2004, I received on December later, weeks Several closely were issues raised in the second letter the matters be examined. Since III) asking that additional that, rather I decided first letter, Ablonczy’s to Ms to the inquiry under way in response related already single but broader would be incorporated into a the new request a second inquiry, than creating THE SGRO INQUIRY OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER editing andprinting. interpretation ofthe addition, there were costsassociatedwith(a)thespeciallegaladvice neededwithrespect tothe contracts withBorden LLPand,onamuchsmaller scale,withRDMConsulting.In LadnerGervais Citizenship andImmigration Canada),there were substantialout-of-pocketcoststhatarose from the time There were substantialcostsinvolved inconductingthisinquiry. Asidefrom thecostsrepresented inthe THECOSTS In their In wasmadeintermsof addition,allindividualsnamedinthisreport oraboutwhomanyobservation cooperative. very formerly oftheMinister’s staff.MrHarjit were Singh Allotherparticipants refused tobeinterviewed. inquiry, Ialsore-examined, underoath,MsKatherineAbbott, andMrIan MrLeighLampert Laird, all a leave ofabsenceduringthecampaignleadinguptofederalelectiononJune 28,2004.Laterinthe Mr Ihor between theMinister duringthefederalelectioncampaigninMay-June, andthedepartment 2004,and former Minister ofCitizenship andImmigration, aswell asMsKatherineAbbott, thedesignatedliaison their credibility, onaninformalbasistheHonourable Ipersonallyinterviewed Judy Sgro, thenow therefore, thevalue ofassessing whichIattachedtotheirsworntestimony),aswell astheimportance and thereport ispostedonmy limited numberofcopiestheprintedreport are available from theOfficeofEthics Commissioner, Copies ofthereport are available tomembersofthemediaandallparliamentarians,amongothers.A to thepublic. for Prime Minister Paul Martin, theMember forCalgary-Nose Hill, MsDiane Ablonczy, andtheMember torespondthe allegationsmadeandwithanopportunity tothem.Finally, againasrequired by theAct, In addition,MsSgro wasprovided toconsiderthefactsmaterialandrelevant withanopportunity to as Appendix IX. letter limited assherequested initiallytothematterofMsAlinaBalaican, wasdelivered toheronMay 2.My asked ifIwoulddealwithherletteronaseparatebasis.compliedthisrequest, andmyletter, initially requested andwiththeallegationsmadeby MsAblonczy. MsSgro laterchanged hermindand Initially, MsSgro hadagreed thatthisreport woulddealbothwiththeconfidential adviceshehad contained inthereport’s penultimatedraft. Immigration
addition, York
and conduct to Ms West, MsJudy Sgro, were provided withacopyofthisreport atthesametimeasitwasreleased
Wons, aseniorpolicyadvisortotheMinister (andlaterheractingChiefofStaff), whowason effort
Sgro was given were provided torespond withanopportunity toexcerpts ofthecommentsaboutthem
relating
invested
the Parliament ofCanada Act confidential,
to central
by
the
the
allegations
nature staff Web site,at
but since of
of the
the made
Office
roles she subsequently
and(b)thepublicationof thefinalreport, including against
of
they
the
the played Ethics
former
Commissioner in made
the
Minister
events it public,
of being
and
Citizenship it is
other examined included
offices
and
in this (and,
(primarily report THE SGRO INQUIRY - Wons, Work VI. OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER and Residence Temporary her discretionary and (b) as a consequence, she intended to limit the use of powers. (TRPs)), Permits staff, the point of view on the Minister’s of several was, at least from there As the campaign progressed, pursued. were these objectives some slippage in the rigour with which the then First, two contextual matters pertaining particularly are to Ms Sgro. additional interest Of as usual either able to be as “present” was ill during the campaign, and she was not, therefore, Minister been unable that I have for reasons during the campaign period. Second, as a candidate or as Minister, appears – the staff. It of the Minister’s serious tensions among the members were there to clarify fully, to be associated with Ian staff perceived two “camps”: were clear – that there evidence is not entirely closely identified with Ihor more and those who were to the Minister, then Chief of Staff Laird, of absence during the election campaign itself. policy advisors, who was on a leave one of the Minister’s during the campaign was a the campaign, but their consequence These tensions certainly pre-dated or as helpful to and with each other to be either as cooperative staff divided and not inclined, therefore, the campaign as they might otherwisemade following of the Minister been. The decision have careful occurring in the previous been as to what must have staff speaks volumes to dismiss virtually the entire and months. weeks THE CONTEXT almost relied I have Ms Ablonczy, by to the allegations made with respect coming to my findings In of those interviewed on the sworn testimony entirely by produced under oath and the documents testimony was not, however, office. The sworn Canada and Ms Sgro’s and Immigration Citizenship contradicted by sometimes one witness were the claims made by example, For or clear. always consistent such as my judgment about the on additional factors, relied cases, I have such In those of another. of his or her memory. selectivity of a particular as the apparent witness, as well credibility in understanding took place was also helpful, I believe, the events Considering the context in which the allegations contextual interest, general For themselves. the events (though not, of course, excusing) 2004, the period of the and June that took place in May primarily to events made in this case relate but they hectic for all those involved, notoriously are periods federal election. Election most recent particular especially new challenges to ministers, present ministers, who must not only present but also carry out their departmental responsibilities as candidates in their constituency, themselves business strictly separate. All sitting ministers and government while at the same time keeping campaign with this challenge. must find ways to cope seeking re-election and Immigration, of Citizenship the then Minister Ms Sgro, As an example of what can happen, it clear to her staff that (a) it was particularly making began the campaign by important apparently to her ministerial of political partisanship the appearance even with respect during this period to avoid in approving of her discretion (including the exercise responsibilities Commis of the Ethics of the Office within the budget will be absorbed been or costs have All of these Appendix listed in they are of the report, of readers interest but for the general sioner, THE SGRO INQUIRY OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER must, Ibelieve, bepursuedby theHouse ofCommonsitself. Thethree allegationsare: privilegeand,althoughIhave madeabriefcommentoneachofthem, anyfullerresponse parliamentary There were three allegationsinMsAblonczy’s letterofDecember 14,2004relating tomattersof privilege, themattershould,indeedmust,bedealtwithby theHouse ofCommonsitself. obligations establishedby thePrime Minister. Moreover, in casesinvolving amatterofparliamentary a minister, and theethicalprinciples,rules hasnotobserved secretary ministerofstateorparliamentary
Commissioner underthe responsibilities. Thisprivilegeisdistinctlydifferent from thejurisdictionconferred ontheEthics outtheirdutiesand foralegislature anditsmemberstofunctioncarry and immunitiesnecessary privilege refers tothe rights As outlinedintheRDMConsultingReport (Appendixparliamentary IV), (ii) Allegations:Parliamentary Privilege allegations appropriate forexaminationby theEthics Commissioner. quite “belong” anywhere specific,buttowhichIhave attemptedabriefresponse, and,finally, (iv)the allegations whichshould,inmyview, bereferred tootheragencies,(iii)twoallegationsthatseemnot privilegeratherthanmattersfortheEthicswhich are mattersofparliamentary Commissioner, (ii)the Commissioner. It iswithinthiscontextthatIhave arrangedtheallegationsasfollows: (i)theallegations As outlinedintheintroduction tothisreport, there are limitstothelegislative authorityoftheEthics whose involvement withorwhoseconnectiontotheallegationsis,from myperspective, central. what follows below. Rather, Ihave attemptedtosummarize itandcitespecificallyonlythoseindividuals based almostentirely onthesworntestimony, toincludeallofthetestimonyin Ihave madenoeffort 20 (Appendix II)andDecember 14(Appendix III).Although,asindicatedabove, thesefindingsare This sectionofthereport dealswitheachoftheallegationsmadeinMsAblonczy’s lettersofNovember (i) Preliminary comment THEFINDINGS C. B. A.
That there wasacontradictionbetween the Minister’s documentindicatingthatthere knowledge ofsuchrequests. was norecordTemporary of Residence Permits (TRPs) by riding andherapparent advice regarding theissuingofaMinister’sTRP toAlinaBalaican. Ethics CommissionerhasstatedthattheMinister’s request wasonlyforconfidential relating toquestionableactivitiesby herselfandherstaff,whereas theOfficeof she requested by theOfficeof afullinquiry EthicsCommissionerofallallegations That the Minister hadmisledthe House by directly statingandclearlyimplyingthat immigration requests MPs thatcertain mightmakeonbehalfoftheirconstituents. That the Minister’s staffsaidorimpliedthatshewouldnotlookfavourably on Parliament ofCanada Act , toconductanexaminationintoallegationthat THE SGRO INQUIRY to this respect With should be noted VII. It OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER the other 1328-29). On , pp. may, The Minister than real. apparent be more may House of Commons Debates House That the Minister accepted a $5000 campaign donation from an individual named an individual Minister accepted a $5000 campaign donation from That the contrary Sheikh, to the on behalf of Mohsin Sadiq, as Naseer in her election return
D.
are: of questions raised as a consequence was contacted office MP’s of course, that an implies, “A” Allegation because of the form of intimidation in some resulted and that the contact Period, during Question this allegation to pursue is a desire there If his or her duties. was discharging which a member manner in staff between misunderstanding been an honest have might, of course, (it of MPs about intimidation a matter of conflict of Commissioner as the Ethics not by be dealt with appropriately, members), it can as a matter of contempt. of Commons the House but by interest, in Question given an answer between as a contradiction what was perceived Allegation “B” addresses of to two proceedings The allegation refers the House. content of a document tabled in and the Period of the Ethics fall within the jurisdiction it does not, therefore, of Commons, and the House a ruling by following the House, by with exclusively This is a matter that should be dealt Commissioner. the Speaker. that the contradiction I would like to add, however, to of Commons Committee on Access meeting of the House 8, 2004 hand, during the December Hiebert MP Russ to me by to a question put I did indicate in response and Ethics, Privacy Information, which my Office, a request for advice from 15 request had not updated her November that the Minister on my part was an inadvertent This error as confidentiality was limited to the case of Ms Balaican. herself chose to act differently. Minister been maintained unless the should have issues raised during Question of the related analysis of the evolution particular allegation, my Office’s is included in Appendix as the line of responses, as well in the House, Period has, in fact, provided for confidential advice, Ms Sgro request to her initial tabling my response that, by material. with the relevant the House is of Commons of Commons, only the House to the main issue, misleading the House respect With for to members of Parliament available is a procedure and there competent to deal with the matter, dealing with this and other similar issues. Agencies(iii) Allegations: Other to parliamentary relate addition to the allegations that I believe rather than to the mandate privilege In two additional allegations that seemed to fall neither within the were there Commissioner, of the Ethics These two allegations of Commons itself. Commissioner nor that of the House jurisdiction of the Ethics addition, In having them permanently filed in a specific way. specific cases without in fact, remember the how from may be quite different the organization of temporary being considered, files, as cases are date. at a later information is filed or archived was for confidential advice, and, request although the Minister’s to allegation “C”, with respect Finally, Parliamentary public, the Minister’s request made the Minister’s in this context, my Office has not of Commons of the House informing the 15 by November made the matter public on Secretary (see to me on that issue referral Minister’s
THE SGRO INQUIRY 10 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER
Two by oftheallegationsputforward MsAblonczy were asfollows: (iv) Allegations:Special Cases pursued further, itshouldbetakenupwiththeOfficeofPrivacy Commissioner. If tothe allegation“D”were Ibelieve itwould,infact,becontrary true,
of Citizenshipof theDepartment andImmigration that,asmentionedabove, allmembers ofMinister one memberoftheirstaff whowasfrom Sri Lanka.However, we have verified withtheSecurity Branch It thattestimonyby MsSgro istrue andMr the appropriate securityclearance. evidence thatthisisthecase.Theis,infact, thateachmemberoftheMinister’s staffreceived clearance procedures thatare inplaceforallMinister’s Exempt Staff (MES).There is,however, no unless, ofcourse,theMinister, inhiringherstaff,hadsomehow triedtocircumvent thesecurity It isnotatallcleartomehow thematterinAllegation“F”couldbeimaginedtoanethicalquestion details. Given thattheallegationitselfrefers tothe any other. Theywouldnot,however, atleastaccording tothePrime Minister’s code,beentitledtoother or hisstaffwouldalwaysbeentitledtoasktheMinister aboutthecurrent statusoftheBalaican case,or conflict ofinterest code,muchwoulddependonjustwhatwasmeantby theword “details”. Pat Martin With respect toallegation“E”,Icanindicatethat,fromofthePrime thepointofview Minister’s Canada Elections. Commissioner. If there isinterest in pursuing thisissue,itshouldbereferred totheCommissionerof sinceitappearstobebeyondI have thejurisdictionofEthics notpursuedthismatterfurther corrected appropriately onceitwasdiscovered. of MrMohsin Sheikh. TheformerMinister regards thematterasanhonestmistake,onethatwas $5,000 campaigndonationfrom anindividualnamedinherelectionreturn asNaseer Sadiq onbehalf Holders probably nottosection3(1)ofthe , excepttangentialsense.Nevertheless, invery thattheMinister’s itistrue agentaccepteda G. F. E.
Post-Employment CodeforPublic Office Holders with detailsofcampaignworker AlinaBalaican’s file. investigation forsecurity reasons. thataformercompromised staffmemberofthe ifitistrue Minister isunder That the Minister, heroffice,orthe Government of Canadamay have beenethically broken down by riding orinanyotherway. residenttemporary permits personallyissuedby theMinister, records whichcouldbe That the doesnotkeepcomplete Minister (and/orthedepartment) records of That the Minister mayhave contravened the Canada Elections Act, andinviolationofsection3(l)the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Codefor Public Office Wons indicatedthatconcernshadbeenraisedregarding Privacy Act Privacy Act that,ifthematteristobe , itismyview . by providing MPPat Martin Canada Elections Act Conflict of Interest and , but 11 THE SGRO INQUIRY
Residence Temporary OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER and work Residence Temporary has complied date, the Minister To handling. TRP cases that they were These allegation 6 below). (cf. and identified with particular MPs TRPs which is clearly matter, riding or in any other way is an administrative by TRPs That Ms Sgro, just three days before the federal election, granted a temporary resident the federal election, granted a temporary days before just three That Ms Sgro, upon process, the normal enabling her to avoid to Alina Balaican, permit and work expiry temporary of her original for landed immigrant status of applying permit, work re-election in Ms Sgro’s volunteer was a Ms Balaican outside the country. from campaign.
H.
(v) Allegations: Ethics in this inquiry to the six allegations that I understood as both response The heart relates of my own These six Commissioner. and within the jurisdiction of the Ethics central to the general issues raised of this section of the report. them in the remainder to along with my response presented allegations are office. system is perfect, course, no security-clearance Of later date for and it is always possible that at some still in connection with a staff member issue might arise or a security-related a security reason whatever on the at that time would, of course, depend action staff. Appropriate the Minister’s or formerly with in the future. matter that can only be dealt with context. This is a in this area. fully with her responsibilities it should be a common business practice for the Allegation “G” questions whether to be filed or archived and Immigration of Citizenship the Minister being issued by (TRPs) Permits the matter forward. to the MP or the riding bringing This would seem to be a reasonable, according although clearly not a mandatorypractice for practice, but the general question of a common business the issuance of recording and, perhaps, outside the jurisdiction of the House Commissioner outside my jurisdiction as Ethics circumstances. in exceptional except itself, office that were the Minister’s obtained under subpoena from lists were the case that is, however, It associated with the issuance of as temporary of the special arrangements, at the initiative been prepared to have however, appear, of the assistants in the office, to keep track in the occurred a delay one case where was There level. to the “secret” security-cleared staff were Sgro’s to be made in a that needed to inquiries this was attributable however, of the security clearance; issuance country of time. for a period foreign there had lived the individual because confirmed that no and Immigration of the Department of Citizenship Branch Security the Moreover, in the former Minister’s working to an individual initiated with respect been had ever investigation the issuance of a all true. did approve Ms Sgro These statements are was a Balaican the end of the federal election, and Ms days before three permit to Ms Alina Balaican (as did all other Sgro campaign, for which effort she received re-election in Ms Sgro’s volunteer note on the day of the federal election. thank-you a “form” volunteers)
THE SGRO INQUIRY 12 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER volunteer andthatapotentialconflict ofinterest was involved. presenteddepartment, thecase totheMinister, (asdidIhor clearlyknew affirm theynever mettheMinister. KatherineAbbott, who,astheMinister’s designatedcontactwiththe categorically statedthatshewasunaware ofthisfact.Furthermore, MrMulholland andMsBalaican she madethedecisiontogrant questionis,therefore,The crucial whethertheMinister thatMsBalaican knew wasavolunteer when status ofMsBalaican asavolunteer intheMinister’s re-election campaign. previous decisions.At issueiswhetherthere discretionary wasanylinkbetween thisdecision andthe Canadian citizen, possibleexploitationby animmigrationconsultant) thatwere consistentwith her powersdiscretionary asprovided forby law, butalsoforreasons (familyunification,marriagetoa andImmigration officeandtoldthatthe In thissequenceofevents, itisclearthattheMinister actednotonlyentirely withinherlegitimate The • totheMinister powers who,usingthediscretionary grantedtoherunderthe whatappearstobecontinuinginterest inthematterby Mr Afterareview ofthecase,andapparently responding bothtothesubstanceofcaseand Citzenship andImmigration duringtheelectioncampaign. • designatedstaffmemberwhoactedastheliaisonbetween theMinister of andtheDepartment referred it(althoughnot,interestingly, MsBalaican) toKatherineAbbott, theMinister’s Mr thank-you notesfrom theMinister onthedayofelection. • nameappearsonthelistofvolunteer workers, allofwhom,asindicatedabove, received re-election campaign.Subsequently, theydidactuallywork onthecampaign:MsBalaican’s himwith4to5pagesofmaterial;inaddition,theyvolunteered towork ontheMinister’s In thecampaignoffice,theytalkedwithIhor response, MsBalaican andherhusbandwent toMinister Sgro’s campaignoffice. • toassistMsBalaican. approximately However, onemonth,try astheyreceived nopositive vacated hisseatintheHouse ofCommons);theconstituencystaffdid,over aperiodof topress theircasefora MsBalaican andherhusband,aCanadiancitizen, approached AllanRock’s constituencyoffice Canada. • work permitcouldnotberenewed andthatshewaswithoutlegalstatusin hertemporary On May 24,2004,MsAlinaBalaican wasadvisedby Citizenship andImmigration Canadathat • The sequenceofevents appearstobeasfollows: Refugee Protection Act Wons discussedthecase with MsBalaican and herhusband(MrMulholland) andthen TRP wasgranted:MsBalaicanby afterwards thelocalCitizenship wascontactedshortly , directed thatthe Temporary Residence Permit MrRock (TRP). wasnotthere (hehad TRP. TheMinister, whohasclearlynever metMsBalaican, TRP begranted. TRP hadbeenissued. Wons, presenting theircasetohimandproviding Wons, MsAbbott presented thecase Wons) thatMsBalaican wasa Immigration and
13 THE SGRO INQUIRY during the campaign. Wons OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER statement in a letter dated Wons’s his staff from was on leave who Wons, this and other departmental over Wons that I knew Office that “…anyone who had Minister’s of the Prime Murphy Tim That Harjit Singh, who was dodging a deportation order from Citizenship and Citizenship from Singh, who was dodging a deportation order Harjit That warrant had arrest (CIC) pursuant to which a Canada-wide Canada Immigration campaign office pizza to the Minister’s delivered regularly been issued for his arrest, staffers than once to senior Sgro is alleged that he spoke more It in Toronto. of the None the Minister. disclosing his status and asking for assistance from of this or associates at any time notified the authorities staffers, workers Minister’s whereabouts. man’s that Ms Balaican fact or did not recall of the was either unaware TRP to Ms Balaican,
I.
1, and on June Canada (CIC) deportation order, and Immigration was under a Citizenship Mr Singh Services that he was under a removal Agency did send him a letter indicating 2004, the Canada Border if he did was also advised that 17, 2004. He and that he was to appear for an intervieworder on June 17, 2004, but his did not appear on June a Canada-wide warrant might be issued. Mr Singh not appear, two the time, she raised the matter with did indicate that, at hand, Ms Abbott the other matters. On her having was able to recall neither of them staff. Unfortunately, the Minister’s other colleagues on done so. Minister’s of the Prime did meet with Scott Reid Abbott the federal election campaign, Ms Following Mr cases by about the handling of some concerns to express Office in order as to whether the and Mr Reid Ms Abbott the testimony of between is some inconsistency While there had not, in was satisfied that the Minister meeting, Mr Reid case was discussed during their Balaican general, intervened in the immigration cases. inappropriately when doubts at the times Ms Abbott’s given However, deal of uncertainty remains. balance, a great On that the Minister, absolute denial, I choose to believe the Minister’s evidence was taken under oath, and in granting the campaign. re-election in her was one of the many volunteers further the matter is the actions of Mr complicated by However, that, intentionally or not, he placed the I believe campaign. on the re-election to work position in order case (a) discussing the Balaican by conflict of interest but certainly apparent in a possibly real Minister her immediately to Katherine Abbott, of referring instead with Ms Balaican fully than appropriate more Ms the ongoing status of the case, and (c) allowing on Katherine Abbott feedback from (b) requesting direct while she was simultaneously seeking the Minister’s in the campaign to act as a volunteer Balaican it is certain that Mr interventionand active case. Moreover, in her 4, 2004 to September was a forthrightvery and was very and her testimony witness, Ms Abbott credible helpful. Generally, some uncertainty to this particular or not as to whether issue, she expressed in relation Unfortunately, that she thought repeated She status as a volunteer. Ms Balaican’s about the Minister she had informed her uncertainty is shortbut she stopped she had, it. Perhaps to fully confirm of being able at the time a had (as she suggested in Ms Abbott decision was made, the time the Balaican by due to the fact that, with Mr up fighting” “given context) but related different either not true was or not in the campaign” not to volunteer an open immigration file was warned at least in this particular case. up, followed effectively
THE SGRO INQUIRY 14 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER Canada forJuly onFebruary 10,2004,andhe wasdeported 2,2005. In anyevent, theGreater or anythingelse. had metwithMrSingh andhadagreed toassisthiminanywayexchange offree food forthedelivery office, there isabsolutelynocredible MrSingh’s evidencetosupport laterallegationthattheMinister conflict ofinterest introduced by continuingtotolerateMrSingh’s presence inthecampaign least theonesinvolving MrSingh, thatMrSingh offree foodand the ceaseanddesistinthedelivery Despite thelackofappropriate follow-up by thoseinthecampaignofficetoMr was eitherrecommended orgrantedby theMinister toMrSingh. regarding MrSingh’s casepleaseCANCELtherequest forastay.” Subsequent relief tothis,nofurther oftheSolicitorDepartment wrote, General, “As MrLampert discussed andgiven thecircumstances this possiblecourseofactionwasnotfollowed. In anothere-mailsenttothesameofficialsin “was okaywiththat,atthattime.” However, uponreconsideration, andattheurgingofCICofficials, regarding therecommendation forMrSingh fora3-monthstayofdeportation andthattheMinister specifically questionedonthismatter, MsAbbott testifiesthatshehadspokenwiththeMinister andisrequestingcase ofHarjit SINGHfurther astayofremoval foraperiodof60days.” Aswell, when oftheSolicitorDepartment wrote, General “Theministerwishestostudythe ofCanada,LeighLampert orderstay ofthedeportation whilethesedifferences were out.In sorted ane-mailtoofficialsinthe providing. Considerationwastherefore given by theMinister’s stafftorecommending athree-month with respect tothedifferences between CIC’s informationandthe thatMrSingh was Ms Abbott explored thematterwithCitizenship andImmigration Canada(CIC),andsomeissuesarose going onthisfile.Afterwe makethefinaldecisionwe shouldcallhimwiththeendresult.” In anycase, Wons wrote, “We owe thisguy–alookatthefaxhesentyou today–toseeifitchangeswhere we’re Abbott justaftertheelection,MrSingh provided additionaldocumentsforconsideration,Mr order,stay ofthedeportation active considerationofthemattercontinued.In ane-mailtoKatherine With respect tothesubstanceofimmigrationcaseinvolved, thatis,therequest by MrSingh fora signed by theMinister onJune 28,2004,thedateoffederalelection. or anythingelse,wasofficiallyacknowledged by theMinister inthe“form letter” ofthankstovolunteers office, ononeoccasionforanentire weekend. His contributiontothecampaign,whetheroffree food continuedtobepresentfood deliveries, atleastforatime,andhecertainly intheMinister’s campaign continued, andheaskedthatthispracticecease.Apparently, however, MrSingh continuedtomakethe Office, heindicatedtoMrSingh that“itwasinappropriate” forsuchdeliveries tobemadeor andinthiscase,consistentwithhislaterstatementto department, the immigrationmattertoKatherineAbbott, theMinister’s designatedliaisonpersonwiththe free ofcharge.In thiscase,Ihor During theelectioncampaign,MrSingh was,however, delivering foodtotheMinister’s campaignoffice workers orassociates,tonotifytheauthorities. during theelectioncampaign,andthere was,therefore, reason noparticular fortheMinister’s staff, ofhisfather’s insupport certificate absence.No Canada-widearrest warranthad,however, beenissued son, Parminder Singh, wrote alettertotheGreater Toronto Enforcement Centre bookedMrSingh’s permanentdeparture from Wons acted,inthefirstinstance,appropriately: heimmediatelyreferred Toronto Enforcement Centre, attaching adoctor’s Tim Murphy ofthePrime Minister’s Wons’s at instructions, 15 THE SGRO INQUIRY immigration
with
individuals
OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER attracted
office
campaign
Minister’s
the
if
surprising
be That the Minister’s political staff worked on the Minister’s re-election campaign while Minister’s on the worked political staff Minister’s That the Treasury office budget, contrary Ottawa to charging their expenses to the Minister’s of was on leave Ian Laird also seems that her then Chief of Staff, guidelines. It Board instructions to Balaican. absence at the time he gave for the issuance of the permit That Song Dae Ri, a North Korean defector who was seeking landed immigrant status immigrant status was seeking landed defector who Korean North a Dae Ri, Song That office. campaign in Ms Sgro’s also active was in Canada,
had been in the was informed that Mr Ri The Minister and other staff. Ms Abbott Wons,
hardly
K. J. would
is no there immigration matter, Ri case was a highly publicized Dae the Song issues, and although campaign Ri visited Ms Sgro’s Dae is true that Mr Song evidence to support this particular It allegation. supporting the Korean petitions from on the second occasion he presented office at least twice; but his case was already later forwarded to the CIC head office in Ottawa, which were community, to Mr known Ri and those accompanying Dae Song both visits, On this was inappropriate. that office, and she agreed the premises. asked to leave him were visit was observed who accompanied Mr Ri on his second that a woman to be is also true, however, It is no and there volunteer, not a regular but she was apparently flyers”, or “folding envelopes” “stuffing or and any effort the Minister one-time work by and apparently this casual evidence of any link between application for immigrant status in Canada. Ri’s Dae of Song her staff to influence the outcome is what and Mr Singh, illustrated in this case, and in the cases of Ms Balaican what is clearly However, the campaign office of from combination of insufficient exclusion turned out to be the very awkward by the Minister staff to protect taken by and insufficient care with open immigration files volunteers departmentalseparating campaign matters from business.
The groups. into three down staff) can be broken (MES) (that is, political Staff Exempt The Minister’s departmental and office – their salaries in the Minister’s who work comprises the individuals first group out of who work employees of individuals are second group paid out of public funds. The benefits are as allocated budget paid out of the MP’s and benefits are office – their salaries Hill Parliament the MP’s in the MP’s the individuals who work are group The third Economy. of Internal the Board by of the House budget as allocated by also paid out of the MP’s constituency office, and they are Economy. of Internal Commons Board one 25 individuals (including eight public servants) the first group, in were there the case of Ms Sgro, In a full Although my Office was unable to conduct in the third. and three in the second group and other expenses travel the pay status and the did examine details of the work, audit, we professional 25, campaign (May for each day of the period of the election of each of the 29 individuals involved these individuals during an election governing regulations 28, 2004). The relevant 2004 - June time, that is, in the campaign on their own re-election on the Minister’s them to work campaign allow to required are any additional time on the campaign members working Staff and on weekends. evenings without pay. of absence (LOA) take a leave It
THE SGRO INQUIRY 16 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER Canada oranyothergovernment agencymighthave cared whetherornotthere inthis wasashortage occupational groups [itdoesbeggar theimaginationthatHuman Resources andSkills Development Whatever one’s maybeabouttheappropriate views policywith respect tothe immigrationofvarious appear tohave beenanyinvolvement by eithertheMinister orotherministerialstaff. was madeby theExecutive Director oftheAdult Association.In Entertainment neithercasedoesthere and themeetingtookplaceatHouse ofLancasteritself. In theothercase,contactwithMr from theowner toMr inanattempttooffer specialaccess.Therequests forameetingcameinonecasedirectlyintervention that theMinister waspresent atthesemeetingsnorthatwere theresult oftheMinister’s although Mr strip clubs:MrKoumoudouros oftheHouse ofLancasterandMrPsihogios Strip oftheAirport Club, It appearsthatIhor paid outofpublicfunds. Further, Ifoundnoevidence thatMsSgro’s MESstaffwere conducting campaignbusinesswhilebeing Ottawa budget. examined indetail,butIfoundnoinstancewhere campaignexpenseswere chargedtotheMinister’s MES staffmembersKatherineAbbott, Simone MacAndrew Theseexpenseswere andLeighLampert. In additiontotheabove, travel andhospitalityexpensesduringtheelectionperiodwere disclosedfor relative totheovertime actuallyworked inrecognition ofwhichsuchleave wouldbejustified. leave inthesetwocases,norecordsdoubt thelegitimacyofsuchcompensatory were available tome is, inlieuofunpaidovertime, inorder towork onthere-election campaign. and Jenny Hooper (Parliament Hill leave Officestaff)whowere withpay, grantedcompensatory that There were, however, twoindividuals:Emily Marangoni (Toronto constituencyoffice,officemanager) been inappropriately chargedtotheMinister’s Ottawa budget. (May 25,2004-June 28,2004),andIfoundnoevidencethatanyoftheir(orMrLaird’s) expenseshad Smith (June 3,2004–June 28,2004),Ihor leaves ofabsencewithoutpaysoastowork full-timeontheelectioncampaign.Thesewere Geoffrey In additiontoMrLaird’s one-dayabsence,three otherindividualsfrom theMinister’s staffwere granted permit. 2004), butthiswasnotthedayonwhichhesignedministerialauthorizationforBalaican authorization. MrLaird didtakeanofficialleave ofabsenceforasingleday, Election Day (June 28, issuance ofa throughout thecampaign.It procedure wasdepartmental that,oncetheMinister hadapproved the In thecaseofMsSgro’s campaignand staff,theMinister’s ChiefofStaff was“inplace” inOttawa L.
TRP, theChiefofStaff oranotherexempt staffmemberwouldsigntheministerial Wons doesnotrecall themeetingwithMrPsihogios. There is, however, noindication Minister mightbeabletoassisttheminbringing additionalstrippers intoCanada. to discusswithherChiefofStaff, Ihor Wons and/orotherministerial staffwhetherthe That the Minister offered specialaccesstotwoandpossiblymore ownersofstrip clubs Wons did,priortotheperiod ofthefederalelection,meetwithowners oftwo Wons inhiscapacityasaseniorpolicyadvisor, notChiefofStaff, totheMinister, Wons (June 3,2004–June 28,2004)andByron Allin While Ihave noreason to Wons
17 THE SGRO INQUIRY
TRPs OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER commented under the Minister (TRPs), Permits Residence Temporary place of one case in their clubs, in at least of these to meet the owners choice Wons’s most urgent.” try to the ones that were going to down were to keep ourselves We That the Immigration Minister told her Liberal colleagues that she would not issue told her Liberal colleagues that Minister Immigration That the to permits at least a dozen the election and then handed out during permits ministerial and campaign workers. political donors her own to be engaged in using an election campaign. That I was not going through TRPs
between beginning. Thus, in an e-mail exchange the campaign’s was evident at This cautious approach Mr Lampert 8, 2004, stated: dated June Leigh Lampert Abbott and Katherine policy during the election. the Minister’s a Liberal MP) to reiterate “I spoke with … (Note: is very will not be intervening…” unhappy that the Minister He/she the campaign. I made that quite clear to for election purposes or for political purposes through people. he about a conversation Sgro 20, 2004, Mr Lampert told Minister on May another e-mail exchange In and Mr Lampert stated: had had with another Liberal MP, its political ... he/she says this is an emergency given now only” “I explained “emergencies the same will give many others and we from importance … but the file looks no different to fade during the last part of the campaign. Thus, in her testimony given This policy seemed, however, for refusal.” grounds commented: 8, 2005, Katherine Abbott under oath on April clear intention all did not want to be doing a lot of permits. Her really Sgro) (Minister “She along was not to be doing a lot of permits during the election.” oath: with than before even cautious of the fact that I was going to be more “I made people aware issuing M. Mr particular area], his poor judgment on reveal indelicate and to seems to be offices, rather than in government business to the in response was in fact provided no assistance despite the meetings, that however, is clear, part. It dancers. as exotic to Canada women to bring more for permission request owners’ to Ms 20, 2004, after her allegations in relation dated November letter, this context, in her first In adds: Ms Ablonczy and Mr Ri, Mr Singh Balaican, campaign attracted individuals as to whether the Sgro “These allegations raise serious questions in fact, was, and whether special preference the Minister from seeking special preference to the issuance of respect With extended in one form or another.”
THE SGRO INQUIRY 18 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER individuals were granted Residence Permits (TRPs) duringtheperiod from May 25toJune 28,2004.From thislist,128 Justice counsel,provided myOfficewithalistofpersonswhowere grantedministerial muchmore permits.” forthcoming In ofCitizenship thefinalanalysis,Department andImmigration, through of theirDepartment duringemergenciesto…Iwon’t saya“free forall” …buttochangeofattitude thatthere are mid-election,there wasasignificantchangeinattitude. “…Iknow between …twoweeks, certainly three weeks before theelectioncalluntil testified: needs oftheapplicant.AsLeighLampert comeback,there wasmore ofapressure ofjust…gettingitdone.” It isalmostasiftheentire issuebecameelectorallydefinedratherthanbeingunderstoodintermsofthe ...becausewere periodoftime,becausethere inthatshort wasathoughtthatwe mightnot pressure, and… “…we were reacting tothetemperature intheoutsideworld,andwe were alsogettingalotof were issuedtoward theendofelectioncampaign: However, examination,MsAbbott uponfurther indicatedthatinrelation tothenumberofpermitsthat was unavailable becausehewason a leavetoreach of absence, MrSadiq Mr would try many different individuals.During theelectioncampaignitself, whenMr provide volunteers, manhours,labour” It wasalsothe sameMrSadiq who, inasteadystream ofe-mailstoIhor “…Naseer wasagentlemanwhogreat resource totheelectioncampaign…hewasable “D”, aboutwhomMsAbbot notedinhertestimony: this context,there is,forexample,thecaseofNaseer Sadiq, thesamepersonreferred toinallegation the minister’s torelatives, campaignandabenefitthatmightaccrue friendsorspecificorganization.In On theotherhand,there appeared tobesomeindirect connectionbetween working asavolunteer on the othernamethatappeared wasthatofMsBalaican. volunteers’ namesappeared: thewifeanddaughterofonenamedvolunteers obtained donor andvolunteer listswiththoseindividualsreceiving These permitswere not,however, given toSgro campaigndonorsorvolunteers. In cross-referencing the which were approved between June 23, 2004andJune 25,2004. identified withLiberalMPs. Of these74cases,24were identifieddirectly withMinister Sgro, 19of the application.Of these,twowere byMP, aConservative supported whiletheremaining 74were during thelastweek ofthefederalelectioncampaign.In 76cases,aspecificMPislistedassupporting allegation “G”,we were abletoidentify94specificfiles.Of these,43were authorized by theMinister list wascompared withlistsobtainedfrom theMinister’s officeundersubpoenaandasreferred toin TRPs by theMinister duringthe2004federalelectioncampaign. TRPs, nodonors’ names andonlytwo You are goingfrom anopermitexcept Wons, askedforpermits Wons’s e-mail departmental Wons by sending Temporary When this TRPs, and 19 THE SGRO INQUIRY TRPs was Wons Wons: as a visitor Toronto of these e-mails One Wons”. inappropriate Wons’s to separate himself from Wons OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER in managing and promoting of absence, was active on leave while Wons, although he found other ways in which to continue his for it” had to “stand Wons and, in particular, in July for individuals wishing to attend the annual Ahmadiyya conference TRPs individuals. usually related, for other, the issuance examination under oath when she was questioned, for example, regarding Ms Sgro’s During of campaign and to the re-election work been limiting his own have immigration cases when he should this ministerial and departmental In substantive work. from separating that responsibility carefully that individuals with immigration issues should gravitate toward context, just as it is not surprising it is not surprising that, when Mr campaign, and Immigration of Citizenship the Minister of a President case) … his wife … and daughter … he (National to (this “… with reference 1 priority for him as he discussed the case with organization) also said this case is No. religious in his last meeting with her ... the best option is to get her to the Minister list requested accommodating his wife and daughter against the already or Permit on Minister’s for approved campaign and ministerial permits were on the Sgro The person in this case was a volunteer of forty visitors.” 24, 2004. his wife and daughter on June two are is the evidence – of which the above of interest to conflict damaging with respect Equally examples – that Ihor during the election campaign, not be available 2, 2004 that his e-mail account would informed on June in Ottawa: he indicated to a ministerial staff member that of taxpayers not looking after the interest does not mean I’m on leave “… just because I’m am I supposed to on files how with the Minister still working pay all of our salaries. I’m I think me some answers. the person pushing this issue can give communicate with her? Maybe the end, Mr In I will not stand for it.” this is a slap in my face and personally, it was this very activities. Indeed, inability and/or unwillingness of Mr with or without her the department the Minister, on the campaign that placed while he was working above. described in the conflict of interest unintentionally, and however knowledge, of Mr was aware is difficult to assess the extent to which the Minister It interventions was used to make the case for and of the extent to which assistance in the campaign of Ihor the kind attention “For but marked other staff members e-mails to reads: of into the probability look … his wife, … and daughter … Please of my good friends, “One two 25, 2004 for a period of of this family on June for four members approved permits were Ministerial permits for this family…” issuing Minister’s to Mr wrote Sadiq during the election campaign, Mr another case, again In years.
THE SGRO INQUIRY 20 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER Among theallegationsappropriate to themandateofEthics Commissioner, three were related to The “Ethics” Allegations “G” above), Ihave however, provided someremarks. Commissioner butforwhichnootherentityseemed tohave jurisdiction.In these twocases(“F”and In addition,there were twoallegationswhichseemedtobeunrelated tothemandateofEthics Elections intheother(“E”). doing so,through thePrivacy Commissionerinonecase(“D”)andtheofCanada the House ofCommons. privilege; iftheyarerelate tobepursued,theywouldneedtakenupby tomattersofparliamentary of theEthics Commissioner. Asoutlinedearlierinthisreport, three ofthese(“A”, “B”and“C”above) Thus, oftheallegationsmadeinMsDiane Ablonczy’s twoletters,five falloutsidethelegislative mandate Office Holders SUMMARY STATEMENTS sponsors were alsoworking onhercampaignseemslimited,butisnotcompletelynon-existent. judgment isthattheMinister’s knowledge ofspecificinstanceswhere thoseseekingpermitsortheir “Iwasn’t connectingthetwo,” and“Probably …Iexpectso.” With respect tospecificcases,Ihave notbeenabletoverify thecircumstances ineachinstance.My conference andatthesametimeworking onthecampaign,shereplied: onlyassumethathewouldhave given ussomehoursofvolunteer time.” And finally, theseindividualswere whenquestionedwhethersheknew lookingforassistanceonthe “Idon’t know ifhewasworking onthecampaignbutheissomeonewe knowwell. Ican very working onhercampaign,shereplied: year conference asfarassisting.” butthatwassomethingisdoneevery When MsSgroifoneormore wasaskedtoconfirmwhethersheknew oftheseindividualswere assistingonourcampaigninoneformoranother, oftheorganizationthis thatwaspart “There wasarepresentative whowasassisting–Idon’t know how much,butthathewas whether shewasaware thatanyone from thatcommunitywasassistingonhercampaign,sheresponded: instance, tothePrime Minister’s conflictofinterest code,thatis,the Ethics CommissionerofCanada,however, isquitenarrowly defined,andislimited,inthis particular The term“Ethics Commissioner” broadly. canbedefinedvery Theactuallegislative mandateofthe The Ethics Commissioner’s Mandate . Two allegationswouldhave tobepursued,ifthere further isstillinterest in
Conflict of Interest Codefor Public 21 THE SGRO INQUIRY rules…”
former individuals
the the
the
of three
knew
cases,
All
Temporary that
three
(#3).
staff
the intervention
Ri
Permit Residence Temporary Of the
Dae
OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER West. experienced Song
requesting and York
were
for
(#2) were
these
MP
three
Singh
staff… all
Sgro,
Harjit and your
Judy
on
(#1),
Canada, more
in
and
Honourable Balaican
status the
more
Alina of rely
to cases
have immigration
the Immigration,
of
a who was granted intervened Balaican, the case of Alina only in seeking
Minister was no serious There been different. seems to have expectations, the reality the Minister’s Whatever intervention active for their so as to eliminate those seeking the Minister’s volunteers attempt to screen than the decisively quickly and more in the Ri case, which was disposed of more benefit. Even own accompanying entourage was observed assisting in the campaign office. others, a member of Ri’s Minister consistent with the Minister’s and entirely discretion legislative the Minister’s within well on grounds discretionary cases were decisions. Although the other two in her previous reflected ongoing criteria as was granted. no relief certainly with the Minister, discussed seeking was that the individuals were Singh and Mr to the cases of Ms Balaican The difficulty common assisting on the Minister’s actively ministerial interventionactive as they were at the same time that Ms did not know the Minister on the evidence, it is concluded that Based campaign. re-election decision to grant her a at the time she made the volunteer was a campaign Balaican although that this was the case. Thus, but members of her staff certainly did know Permit, Residence her staff placed her in a conflict of grounds, substantive made her decision on appropriately the Minister not fully to serve in the first instance and then by a volunteer Ms Balaican as allowing both by interest to her for a decision. the case was brought when and explicitly informing the Minister she was not surprised that individuals seeking this issue. Although herself recognized The Minister office, when questioned whether she thought it important would go to her campaign immigration relief on her campaign, she a person who was working to related if a particular request for her to know responded: been told if someone seeking her help was expected to have have And when asked whether she would known.” course, I should have “Of on her campaign, she replied: working if someone is helping me it automatically puts me in a position of conflict (of interest) “Well she was of her staff whether any individuals for whom whether she inquired when questioned However, and then asking for something at the same time.” on her campaign, she replied: working were her discretion being asked to exercise it to me… I would expect staff not present … I would expect that staff first off wouldn’t “No, deal on her staff. As she put it: a great indeed, relied The Minister, to bother to bring that case to me.” even “You were individuals:
THE SGRO INQUIRY 22 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER outlined in“ major responsibility -afterall,itwasonherdirect authorizationthatthe and whiletheMinister’s reliance onherstaffwas notalwayswell placed,thisdoesnotabsolve herof this conflictofinterest environment appearstoliewiththeMinister’s staff,primarilyMrIhor case, whetherMinister Sgro wasaware ofthisrelationship. person beinggiven thepermitandpersonsactive inMsSgro’s re-election campaignand,ifthatwasthe It hasnotbeenpossibleformetodetermineineachcasewhetherthere wasarelationship between the Holders campaign. ThiswasinclearviolationofPrinciple 7ofthe as volunteers directly buttotherelatives andassociatesofthosewhowere assistingthere-election have beenexpected,butalsothepermitsthemselves seemedavailable nottodonorsorindividualslisted In particular, notonlywasMinister Sgro listedasthesponsoringMPinrathermore casesthanmight more readily available. much theshiftinpolicyasapparent criteriausedingrantingthepermitsthatwere now becoming campaign. election campaign,thispolicyessentiallycollapsedduringthefinalweeks anddaysoftheelection bymonthsbefore limitingsuchpermitsbothinthefew partisanship theelectionandearlyin interest difficultiesdoarise.AlthoughtheMinister toavoid chargesof hadmadeaseriouseffort clearanceatthe“secret” level. In thematterofgeneralissuing there wasnoevidenceofanysecuritylapses:allSgro staffhadreceived theappropriate security assistancetohiminreturn forhishelponinherre-election campaign,and • there wasnoevidencethattheMinister eithermetwithHarjit Singh oragreed tobeof ortheMinister’s publicbudgets. travel andhospitalityexpenseswere chargedaswasappropriate toeitherthecampaignaccounts • there accounts–allpersonnel, wasnoevidenceofanymixing ofthecampaignanddepartmental • Some oftheother“ethics” allegationscanbemore easilydisposedof: Minister inyet anotherconflictofinterest. an officialleave ofabsencefrom theMinister’s Officetowork onhercampaign.He thereby placedthe appeared tobefarmore involved inthesemattersthanshouldhave beenthecase,given thathewason work. MrIhorin ongoingministerialanddepartmental inallthree ofcampaignstaff caseswastheinappropriateThe additionaldifficultyobserved intervention , whichstates: direction, whetherornottheministershadpriorknowledge.” includingtheactionsofallofficials undertheirmanagementand and thoseoftheirdepartment “Ministers are individually responsible toParliament andthePrime Minister fortheirown actions would result inpreferential treatment toanyperson.” “Public officeholdersshallnotusetheirpositionoftoassist private entitiesorpersons where this TRPs were muchmore available. suddenlyvery concern,however, Of particular isnotso Governing Responsibly: AGuide forMinisters andMinisters ofState Temporary Residence Permits (TRPs), however, conflictof Wons, latertheMinister’s actingChiefofStaff, Conflict of Interest Codefor Public Office While themainburden ofresponsibility for TRPs were issued.Asisclearly ”: Wons, 23 THE SGRO INQUIRY
;
- resist make. during
to to Minister
procedural ministerial
provisions
tend The
business
clearer
21, 2005 June seeking various
of
its are
particular.
government recommendation that in
who holders
in
departmental
in
those office further
parties Balaican OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER ensuring
no
of
public
exclude Alina while
have
participate
I to
and
Ms
as Conflict of Interest Code for Public Office Code for Interest Conflict of not
objective to Conflict of Interest Code for Public Office Holders Office Public for Code Interest of Conflict
so
do
the
the
decision,
resignation, or respect
Parliament
with
former workers that
of
with on
the
half of during the latter (TRPs) Permits Residence Temporary Minister’s and
that
volunteer members
comment
general their ensure staff,
particular in to
a my
screen without for for
staff Parliament of Canada Act Canada of Parliament
Parliament of Canada Act Canada of Parliament to
call and the
campaign the (ii)
other
to
of
and under
from tend
development resigned, election
review
staff “When errors or wrongdoings are committed by officials under their direction, Ministers are Ministers direction, under their officials committed by “When are wrongdoings or errors to Parliament assurances providing steps for taking the necessary for promptly remedial responsible reoccurrence.” been taken to prevent action has corrective that appropriate
level, (i) to separate their must take particular clearly imply that ministers running care for re-election already campaign, federal
the and close personal friends. and/or on behalf of relatives intervention behalf own either on their Commissioner The Ethics Concerns: Future a number of sub inquiry Commissioner, The experience of conducting this has raised for me, as Ethics J. Shapiro, Bernard Commissioner Ethics submitted, Respectfully fully and Commissioner (i) are the Ethics to the conducting of examinations by with regard not only for the individual protection reasonable (ii) provide clearly consistent with each other, and (iii) called to testify, made but also to witnesses who are against whom allegations are for enquiry. a framework for the range of allegations to be made in a request provide • the two of his/her roles: between that can arise for the Commissioner the conflict of interest • and the conduct of inquiries concerning of confidential advice to a public office holder provision that same public office holder; the • a more things, in providing guidelines for inquiries; such guidelines would assist, among other to a complaint than was possible in this first instance; timely response a Among these fully in a subsequent report. to take up more issues that I intend and procedural stantive of importanceand in no particular will be: order • inquiries undertaken that can surround political fray the importance the overtly of avoiding either Holders election and wrongdoings Errors vague. intentionally, might be is left, perhaps What further consequences there and the parties, actual practice, Opposition both at the provincial after all, in importance. In vary, federal the Guide: from – again to quote is clear that It vague. means remains actually responsible What being the principles of the to the future, however, respect, With has conflict clearly was placed in a Sgro case, Minister this but certainlysuch calls in most, In not all, cases. granting of to the with respect of interest the
THE SGRO INQUIRY 24 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER belief thattheyhave notbeenobserved. established by thePrime Minister forpublicofficeholdersandsetoutthereasonable grounds forthe orobligations oftheethicalprinciples,rules (2) Therequest shallidentifytheallegednon-observance the circumstances ofthecase,maydiscontinueexamination. (3) TheEthics Commissionershallexaminethematterdescribedinarequest and,havingregard toall analysis andconclusionsinrelation totherequest. the Prime Minister withareport settingoutthefactsinquestionaswell astheEthics Commissioner’s (4) TheEthics Commissionershall,even ifheorshediscontinuestheexaminationofarequest, provide Content ofrequest writing, request thattheEthics Commissionerexaminethematter. orobligationsestablishedby thePrimeprinciples, rules Minister forpublicholdersofficemay, in theethical hasnotobserved minister oftheCrown, secretary aministerofstateorparliamentary (1) AmemberoftheSenate orHouse ofCommonswhohasreasonable grounds tobelieve thata Request from parliamentarian 72.08 orobligations. of thoseethicalprinciples,rules (c) toprovide confidentialadvicetoapublicofficeholderwithrespect totheapplicationhimorher obligations andethicalissuesingeneral; (b) toprovide confidentialadvicetothePrime Minister withrespect or tothoseethicalprinciples,rules office holders; orobligationsestablishedby thePrime(a) toadministeranyethicalprinciples,rules Minister forpublic The mandateoftheEthics Commissionerinrelation topublicofficeholdersis Report Examination Mandate 72.07 [Assented toMarch 31,2004] (Ethics CommissionerandSenate Ethics Officer)andother Actsinconsequence– BillC-4 APPENDIXI STATUTES OFCANADA2004,CHAPTER7,AnAct toamendtheParliament ofCanada Act L egislati
v e
a u
thorit y f y or
e x aminations
b y y the E thics C ommissioner I-1 APPENDIX OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER
Confidentiality in private exercised Powers Inadmissibility Enforcement 72.10 Powers
Confidentiality 72.09 of views Presentation available report Making Commissioner has the power 72.08, the Ethics the purposes of paragraph 72.07(b) and section (1) For them to summon witnesses and require to affirm in civil persons entitled if they are - on oath or, evidence - orally or in writing (a) to give matters, on solemn affirmation; and Commissioner considers necessary. that the Ethics any documents and things (b) to produce the attendance of witnesses and to compel enforce to power Commissioner has the same (2) The Ethics cases. in civil evidence as a courtthem to give of record person in a court a person under this section is inadmissible against the by or given (4) Information under section 131 of the of the person for an offence other than in a prosecution in any proceeding, Commissioner. Code (perjury)Criminal of a statement made to the Ethics in respect and every of the Ethics person acting on behalf or under the direction Commissioner, (5) The Ethics in the performance of may not disclose any information that comes to their knowledge Commissioner, their duties and functions under this section, unless essential for the purposes of this Commissioner, is, in the opinion of the Ethics (a) the disclosure section; or under section 131 of the for an offence (b) the information is disclosed in the course of a prosecution Commissioner. Code (perjury)Criminal of a statement made to the Ethics in respect information that he or she is required any may not include in the report Commissioner (6) The Ethics to keep confidential. under subsection 72.08(4), paragraph 72.07(b) or a report confidential advice under providing Before opportunity with a reasonable the public office holder concerned provide Commissioner shall the Ethics his or her views. to present in private. be exercised to in subsections (1) and (2) shall referred (3) The powers subsection (4), under provided is that the report at the same time shall, Commissioner (5) The Ethics the minister or parliamentary - and the request member who made a copy to the secretary who provide to the public. available make the report - and of the request is the subject
APPENDIX I-2 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER charge hasbeenlaidinrespect ofthatsubjectmatter. investigation todeterminewhetheranoffencereferred toinparagraph(a)hasbeencommittedorthata (b) itisdiscovered thatthesubjectmatterofexaminationisalsoan case theEthics Commissionershallnotifytherelevant authorities;or has committedanoffenceunderAct ofParliament inrespect ofthesamesubjectmatter, inwhich (a) theEthics Commissionerbelieves secretary onreasonable grounds thattheministerorparliamentary (1) TheEthics Commissionershallimmediatelysuspendanexaminationreferred toinsection72.08if respect ofthesamesubjectmatterhasbeenfinallydisposedof. (2) TheEthics Commissionermaynotcontinueanexaminationuntilanyinvestigation orchargein Investigation continued Suspension ofexamination 72.11
I-3 APPENDIX
OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER in Canada,wasalsoactive inMsSgro’s campaignoffice. And itisallegedthatSong Dae Ri,aNorth Korean defector whowasseekinglandedimmigrantstatus workers orassociatesatanytimenotifiedtheauthoritiesofthis man’s whereabouts. staffers disclosinghisstatusandaskingforassistance from the Minister. None oftheMinister’s staffers, to theMinister’s campaignoffice in CIC pursuanttowhichaCanada-widewarranthad beenissuedforhisarrest, regularly delivered pizza Further, ithasbeenreported thatHarjit, orHajest, Singh, order whowasdodgingadeportation from outside thecountry. MsBalaican wasavolunteer inMsSgro’s re-election campaign. work permit, applyingforlandedimmigrantstatusfrom ofheroriginaltemporary upon theexpiry residence andwork permittoAlinaBalaican,temporary enablinghertoavoid thenormalprocess of, Specifically, ithasbeenallegedthatMsSgro, justthree daysbefore thefederalelection,granteda been reported inthemedia,seriousconcernshave arisenregarding possibleabuseofpower by MsSgro. in theMinister’s inherre-election Office,andby somewhoparticipated campaign,allof which have Based onstatementsby ofCitizenship officialsintheDepartment andImmigration, by formerstaffers isatstake. being fairandimpartial Office Holders for Ministers oftheCrown assetoutinthe Citizenship andImmigration, Judy establishedby thePrime therules Sgro, hasfullyobserved Minister This letteristoformallyrequest thatyou asEthics Commissionerinquire intowhethertheMinister of Re: Request Pursuant forInquiry toSection 72.08(1)oftheParliament ofCanadaAct Dear CommissionerShapiro: Ottawa, ONK1P5H1 66 Slater Street, 22ndFloor Ethics Commissioner Mr Bernard Shapiro November 20,2004 APPENDIXII . Imakethisrequest becausethecredibility ofCanada’s immigrationandrefugee systemas Toronto. It is alleged thathespokemore thanoncetoseniorSgro Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Codefor Public II-1 APPENDIX : Ministerial
following
the
It guidelines. Board Treasury breached
OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER have
would
Sgro
Minister
founded,
be
who may and Immigration offices of Citizenship and Ottawa Toronto to
Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders Public Office Code for Post-Employment and Interest Conflict of prove
Treatment allegations
set out in the these
• Standards so that Ethical uphold the highest ethical standards office holders shall act with honesty and (1) Public conserved are objectivity and impartiality of government public confidence and trust the integrity, in and enhanced. • Scrutiny Public an obligation to perform office holders have their official duties and arrange their private (2) Public is not fully discharged by an obligation that closest public scrutiny, affairs in a manner that will bear the simply acting within the law. • Making shall make decisions in the Decision duties and responsibilities, office holders, in fulfilling their official (3) Public case. to the merits of each and with regard public interest • Preferential persons where entities or office holders shall not use their position of office to assist private (7) Public to any person. treatment in preferential this would result inquiry that your request not be limited to, discussions into this matter include, but I would respectfully with: • servants any civil in the come to your individuals or with others who may dealt with any of the aforementioned have inquiry; attention in the course of your individuals campaign attracted to whether the Sgro questions as raise serious These allegations in was, in fact, extended preference and whether special the Minister, from preference seeking special or another. one form campaign while re-election on the Minister’s staff worked political that the Minister’s it is alleged Finally, office budget, contrary Ottawa to to the Minister’s charging their expenses he gave of absence at the time was on leave Laird, Ian then Chief of Staff, also seems that her had Ms Sgro This raises questions as to whether instructionsfor the issuance of the permit to Balaican. whether on her political campaign, and office working of her Minister’s on the payroll people that were was in fact continuing to instruct payroll who was no longer on the one of her staff members department on behalf of the Minister. officials Should obligations
APPENDIX II-2 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER -NoseCalgary Hill Diane Ablonczy, M.P. Yours truly, Please contactmeshouldyou require inorder anythingfurther forthismattertogoforward. standard forfuture suchinquiries. confidence thatyour officewillactthoroughly andexpeditiouslytofulfillthisrequest andsetahigh processThis isanew forbothyour officeandforParliamentarians. However, Ihave complete the internationalcommunity. credibility. andtomaintaintherespect of Therefore isofvitalsignificanceforourcountry thisinquiry indication thatoursystemisopentopoliticalinterference andpreferential treatment underminesits Canadians, butalsotothousandsofhonestapplicantswaitinginthequeue.Even theslightest The fairnessandintegrityofCanada’s notonlyto immigration systemisoftheutmostimportance, matters. anypresent andformerstaffoftheMinister whohave anyknowledge touchinguponthese • MrScottReid, Director ofCommunicationsinthePrime Minister’s Office; ScottReid; • uponthemattersrelating totheinquiry, thoseindividualswhospokewithMr andinparticular anyoftheMinister’s electioncampaignworkers andstaffwhohave anyknowledge touching • II-3 APPENDIX
OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER
theMinister onseveral intheHouse occasions.My andinmediainterviews colleagueM.P. Ihave madetotheMinister inthepastwasdirectly referred tointhecallandhasbeenraisedby daysettingouthisbestrecollection ofthisconversation. Iwouldpointoutthattheonerequest makeonbehalfofconstituents.Attached isMr threat wasmadethattheMinister wouldnotlookfavourably onanyfuture requests thatImight Minister’s Director ofParliamentary Affairs,Marc Khouri.In thatconversation animplied My legislative assistant, Jason 3. the individualnamedinherelectionreturn asSadi Naseer, onbehalfofMohsin to Sheikh, contrary It hasbeenconfirmedthattheMinister accepteda$5,000campaigndonationfrom an AssociationofCanada. Entertainment 2. ofLancasterandtoPeter Psihogios, Strip oftheAirport Cluband publiclyconfirmedon-sitevisitswere to Minister mightbeabletoassisttheminbringingadditionalstrippersintoCanada.Thetwo clubstodiscusswithherChiefofStaff, Ihor AllegationsthattheMinister offered specialaccesstotwoandpossiblymore owners ofstrip 1. pursuant tomysaidletterbeexpandedincludethefollowing: Immigration andofmembersherstaffhave beenraised.Itherefore opened request thattheinquiry Since November 20th,additionalallegationsrelating totheactionsofMinister ofCitizenship and Section 72.08(1)ofthe tomyletterofNovemberThis isfurther 20,2004,whichwasaformalRequest Pursuant forInquiry to Re: Additional Request Pursuant forInquiry toSection 72.08(1)oftheParliament ofCanadaAct Dear CommissionerShapiro: Ottawa, ONK1P5H1 66 Slater Street, 22ndFloor Ethics Commissioner Mr Bernard Shapiro December 14,2004 APPENDIXIII Post-Employment CodeforPublic Office Holders Canada Elections Act Parliament ofCanada Act , inviolationofSection 3(1)ofthe Valentin, onNovember 17th,received atelephonecallfrom the Terry Koumoudouros, co-owner oftheHouse . Wons, and/orotherMinisterial staffwhether the . Valentin’s memowhichwaswritten thatsame Conflict ofinterest and Vice-President oftheAdult
III-1 APPENDIX
. riding. This is issued by TRPs “The immigration minister told her minister told her “The immigration OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER Privacy Act Privacy there and go back to the lobby, this House When I leave in any way in this specific matter? compromised ethically and a similar call he received also stated that has Centre, Winnipeg riding or in any by down and which could be broken the Minister, personally issued by TRPs around, went behind their backs and handed out at least a dozen behind their backs political donors permits went to her own around, many how Does he know Minister. Prime This is my question for the and campaign workers. ministerial permits riding and supporters the minister handed out to her the election during 8, 2004). December campaign? (Hansard, Liberal colleagues that she would not issue ministerial permits colleagues that she would not issue election and then she turned during the Liberal 4. made to him also. was threat veiled” that a “thinly that he believes of campaign him with details Office provided also alleged that the Minister’s Martin Pat M.P. the contravened may have file. This Balaican’s Alina worker for the Member Martin, Pat and the Canadian public on the true has misled the House appears that the Minister therefore It I of the Minister. in this matter at the request involvement Office’s and extent of your nature an and provide statements in this regard the Minister’s Office review would ask that your therefore and the public and have been misleading to the House opinion as to whether they have 3 (1) of the Code. violated Section 7. stated and clearly implied that she has both directly occasions the Minister numerous On to questionable activities by a full inquiry office of all allegations relating requested your by Office, which has stated that the Minister’s your herself and her staff. This is contradicted by to Alina Balaican. Permit her issuing of a Minister’s advice regarding was only for private request I was going to bring a book with me, “Mr Speaker, said earlier in the House: The Minister being lots of them all members of the House, I get from which is thick, full of all the requests the opposition critic. I get and from leader the House from the Leader of the Opposition, from included. yesterday every requests day, 19, 2004) November (Hansard, side waiting there.” the member’s is usually somebody from temporary many to questions about how in response the Minister the document tabled by In in the decision to or concurred she has personally issued, recommended permits [TRPs] resident of was no record that there told the House issue, the Minister individual members and by made of requests the fact that she appears to know contradicted by complete records Keeping of such requests. binder to a Ministerial that at one point she referred of business practice. I would ask that you be an expected and standard would surely other way, 6. and specifically advise me on this issue. inquire for is under investigation has been alleged that a former staff member of the Minister’s It her office, or the the Minister, Has has denied this in the House. The Minister security reasons. of Canada been Government 5. and Member Leader of the Opposition Harper, Stephen 8th, The Honourable December On information: the following for Calgary requested Southwest,
APPENDIX III-2 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER -NoseCalgary Hill Diane Ablonczy, M.P. Yours truly, matters togoforward. Please contactmeshouldyou require into theseadditional inorder anythingfurther fortheinquiry Ministerial integrityandaccountabilityintheParliament ofCanada. the public.Thankyou role foryour thatyou assistanceandfortheimportant playinensuring Minister andherstaffbefullyinvestigated by your officeandthefindingsreported toParliament andto both athomeandabroad, itisessentialthatallofthequestionshave beenraisedaboutthe In lightoftheseriousnature ofalltheseallegationsandhow theyhave already impactedCanada this wouldresult inpreferential treatment toanyperson. (7) Public officeholdersshallnotusetheirpositionoftoassistprivate entitiesorpersonswhere Preferential • public interest andwithregard tothemeritsofeachcase. (3) Public officeholders,infulfillingtheirofficialdutiesandresponsibilities, Decision shallmakedecisionsinthe Making • simply actingwithinthelaw. affairs inamannerthatwillbeartheclosestpublicscrutiny, anobligationthatisnotfullydischargedby (2) Public theirofficialdutiesandarrangeprivate officeholdershave anobligationtoperform Public Scrutiny • and enhanced. intheintegrity,public confidenceandtrust ofgovernment objectivityandimpartiality are conserved (1) Public officeholdersshallactwithhonestyandupholdthehighestethicalstandards Ethical sothat Standards • 3. Every publicofficeholdershallconformtothefollowing principles: Office Holders following Ministerial obligationssetoutinthe Should allegationsprove anyofthesefurther tobefounded,Minister Sgro wouldhave breached the : Treatment Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Codefor Public III-3 APPENDIX
OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER of Canada Act letter totheEthics Commissioner, pursuanttoSection requesting 72.08(1)ofthe aninquiry On December 142004,MsDiane Ablonczy, Member ofParliament forCalgary-Nose Hill wrote a Member ofP Ms DianeAblonczy from on theletter ofDecember14,2004 Report to theEthics Commissioner APPENDIXIV . Theletterrequested areview ofaseriesallegations. arliament forCalgary -Nose Hill Parliament IV-1 APPENDIX Electors 2 OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER left Any legal issues are (the Law of Parliament). lex parliamenti . 1 and class” a “privileged does not mean that legislators are model. It Westminster The statutory 4 of the to Canadian parliamentary 18 of the Constitution of Canada and Section authority relating privilege can be found in Section vii, para. 12. 1971), p. (reprinted 1967, Report, Privilege, Committee on Parliamentary of Commons, Select Kingdom, House United Privilege Parliamentary it raised in the allegations of Ms Ablonczy, issues of the various a better comprehension to have order In and necessity of parliamentaryis necessary with an overview of the nature the review to precede internal its own of Commons to regulate right of the House privilege. A description of the specific of the guardians some comments on who are and Members, to discipline its affairs, including the power parliamentary required. also privilege are has a very terms used the lexicon of procedural specific meaning in privilege” The phrase “parliamentary under the in legislatures the parliamentary its jargon, the decided to modernize as such. Since world has not yet must be treated and key importance, historical background remains with its impressive privilege”, phrase “parliamentary and carries with it a very connotation and purpose in modern parliaments. positive simply to the rights and immunities necessary refers for a It privilege”? What is “parliamentary are who of Commons of Canada), and its Members, as a distinct body (such the House legislature to also refers of the people, to function and carry It responsibilities. out their duties and representatives in undue interference from and their Members themselves possess to protect that legislatures the powers As stated, not for personal gain or advantage. are “privileges” the fulfillment of their functions. However, not of Commons, parliamentary “are House privileges Committee of the British a Select in 1967, by the House by claimed and enjoyed in their personal capacities, (...) they are of Members the prerogative whom they represent.” on behalf of the citizens its Members in its corporate capacity and by c) jurisdiction; or (exclusive or convention of Commons practice, procedure, is a separate House there practice principles and strictly on procedural allegations is based Ms Ablonczy’s This opinion on otherwise) of allegations of this nature. for the handling the theory and implementation of parliamentarygoverning the functioning of to privilege in relation does The opinion, therefore, the performance of Commons and of its Members. and conduct the House or not raise issues of constitutional law whether: an opinion as to to provide 3, 5, and 7 and allegations to review is of this report The object a) or and should be dealt with either exclusively to a matter of privilege each allegation is related b) Committee or the Speaker; a Parliamentary of Commons, otherwise the House by of Commons, a or otherwise) of the House within the jurisdiction (exclusive each allegation falls basis upon which it falls within their indicating the Committee or Speaker, Parliamentary kind of any from chosen be protected they have indeed the right to expect that the representatives have pressure. improper the rights of Commons and battle for the independence of the House The long and hard-fought to competent authorities to argue of Canada Act. Parliament 1 2
APPENDIX IV-2 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER bounds,thateachshow proper deference forthelegitimatesphere ofactivitytheother.” playtheirproper role. theseparts It isequallyfundamentalthatnooneofthemoverstep its executive; It andthecourts. isfundamentaltotheworking ofgovernment asawholethatall Governor General andtheprovincial ofthatoffice;thelegislative body;the counterparts “Our democraticgovernment consistsofseveral branches:theCrown, asrepresented by the of thatbody: say inregard totheindependenceoflegislative body, tothefunctioning andtotherightsnecessary most significantattributesofanindependentlegislative institution” 7 6 5 4 3 Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia assembly” is alsotheauthoritytodecidewhetherornotanysetoffactsamount claims from theGovernor General thetraditionalrightsandprivilegesofassembly. TheSpeaker the legislative bodyasaninstitution.AtHouse theopeningofanew theSpeaker, chosenby hispeers, carries theenormousresponsibility toactastheguardian oftherightsandprivilegesMembers and government, ofparliamentary theSpeakerAs confirmedby thehistory oftheHouse ofCommons a contemptorbreach ofprivilegehasoccurred. On theotherhand,itisalsopossibleforalegisla of privilege” andispunishableascontempt.Thelegislative bodyistheonlyonecompetenttofindthat or anattackonanyoftheserightsandimmunities,by anyindividualorauthority, iscalleda“breach rights, immunitiesandprivilegesofitsMembers. reason, theHouse through mustalwaysassumefullyitsroleSpeaker, toserve, astheguardian ofthe itself anditsMembers are tobedecidedby thelegislature For andnotby anyoutsidebodyorcourt. this body tousurpeven afractionoftherightsandimmunitieslegislature. Parliamentary privilegesfor foritsproper functioningcontinuesstilltodayeachtimethere isanattemptbynecessary anoutside Montréal-Toronto, 2000,pp. 54-6. In delivering themajorityopinionindecisionofSupreme ofCanadain Court appeal. claimed, butdoingsoisalwaysatsomegrave peril. tive bodytodecideformallyby resolution nottoclaimorapplyprivilegeswhichhave previously been right, “one withoutwhichthelegislative bodycouldnotupholditsdignityandefficiency” freedom ofspeechenjoyed by itsMembers. Regulating itsown internalaffairsisawidelyrecognized executive, andthepublic.Thisisprobably themostfundamentalrightforHouse, thecourts after legislative bodytoregulate itsinternalaffairs,free from interference from theCrown, the Among therightsandpowers oftheHouse ofCommonsasacollectivityisthefundamentalright Right toRegulate OwnInternal Affairs privilege hasoccurred. breach ofprivilege,before itissubmittedtotheHouse todecidewhetheracontemptorbreach of Parliamentary Privilege inCanada Parliamentary Privilege inCanada Parliamentary Privilege inCanada Parliamentary Privilege inCanada House ofCommonsProcedure andPractice 6 . In isnotsubjectto thatsense,thejurisdictionofalegislative institution,likethatofacourt, , 2nded.,Maingot, J.P. Joseph, House ofCommonsandMcGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997p. 319. , 2nded.,Maingot, J.P. Joseph, House ofCommons andMcGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997p. 316. , 2nded.,Maingot, J.P. Joseph, House ofCommons andMcGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997p.183. , 2nded.,Maingot, J.P. Joseph, House ofCommons andMcGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997p. 293. , editedby Robert Marleau andCamilleMontpetit, House ofCommons,Ottawa; Chenelière/McGraw-Hill, ( Speaker (Donahoe) When raisedonthefloorofHouse, adisregard for 3 oftheHouse ofAssembly 5 ; “a ofanelected basicrule prima facie ), McLachlin J.hadthisto (atfirstglance),toa New Brunswick 4 ; “one ofthe 7 -
IV-3 APPENDIX immunities
rights,
of
Members.
of
category
the 8
OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER into
intimidation
falls
the
allegation
specifically
This
more
House.
the House,
in
the
of
duties
her
181 1997 p. Press, University of Commons and McGill-Queen’s House Joseph, J. P. , 2nd ed., Maingot, 211 1997 p. Press, University of Commons and McGill-Queen’s House Joseph, J. P. , 2nd ed., Maingot, contempts 9
called
discharging
was
“3. My Legislative assistant, Jason Valentin, on November 17th, received a telephone call form the 17th, received on November Valentin, assistant, Jason Legislative “3. My privileges
Parliamentary Privilege in Canada Privilege Parliamentary in Canada Privilege Parliamentary 8 9 of the Minister’s potentially two privilege matters in this allegation. The alleged actions are There and to Discipline Power to and power affairs also includes the right internal own its right to regulate of Common’s The House The guilty of disgraceful conduct. those Members and to punish Members discipline its own to the authority of the Chair, disregarding to suspension for a reprimand, range from punishment can in the because, for any reason, suspend or expel a Member exclude, may fact, the House expulsion. In a by not confined to offences committed to expel is The power an internal matter. final analysis, it is the offence is such to all cases where but extends Parliament, or during a session of as Member Member for parliamentary unfit duties. [...] ...it (the the Member to render as, in the judgment of the House, to sit and the qualifications of any of its Members its right to decide upon of Commons) retains House in the House.” vote directly referred to in the call and has been raised by the Minister in the House and in media interviews in the House on the Minister by to in the call and has been raised referred directly has also stated that he Centre, Winnipeg for martin, the Member Pat colleague M.P. occasions. My several was made to him also.” threat veiled” that a “thinly a similar call and that he believes received a) or to a matter of privilege and should be dealt with either exclusively related allegation no.3 Is was phoned as a consequence of questions raised office The allegation implies that the Member’s Yes. Committee or the Speaker? of Commons, a Parliamentary otherwise the House by in some form of intimidation of because of the manner in which the and resulted Period in Question Member Allegation no. 3 was made an implied threat In that conversation Khouri. Marc Affairs, of Parliamentary Director Minister’s on behalf of that I might make requests on any future would not look favourably that the Minister written the same day setting out his best recollection memo which was Valentin’s is Mr constituents. Attached in the past was made of the Minister that I have I would point out that the one request of this conversation. paragraph. OPINION separately against the criteria listed in the opening is reviewed Ms Ablonczy Each allegation made by terms of its the right, in affairs includes internal its own right to regulate institution’s The legislative of its conduct and responsibilities affecting the rulesregulations and down to set membership, exclusive.” and “absolute is Members its over The jurisdiction Members.
APPENDIX IV-4 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER Committee make afindingthatitwillreport totheHouse withorwithoutrecommendations. Thereport ofthe rocedure andHouse Administration. ThatCommitteewillthenholditsinquiry, hearwitnesses,and on thematter. Usually themember’ by theStanding motioncallsforaninquiry CommitteeonP other business.Adebatenormallyensuesimmediately onthemember’s motionuntiltheHouse decides thatthererules isprimafascieevidenceofabreach ofprivilege,thematter willtakeprecedence over all dignity oftheHouse, mayraisesuchamatteraftergivingduenoticetotheSpeaker. forthehandlingofallegationno. 3? otherwise) Yes. AmemberoftheHouse, whobelieves there hasbeenabreach ofprivilegeoranoffenceagainstthe Is there aseparateHouse ofCommonspractice,procedure orconvention (exclusive or c) contempt oftheHouse hasoccurred. interfere withourproceedings, sotoowilltheHouse, inappropriate cases,beabletofindthata Speaker Sauvé madethefollowing ina1980ruling comment: “… whileourprivilegesare defined,contemptofthehousehasnolimits. Member orOfficeroftheHouse inthedischargeoftheirduties”. contempt, anyactionwhich,thoughnotabreach orimpedesany ofaspecificprivilegetendstoobstruct within oneofthespecificallydefinedprivileges.ThusHouse alsoclaimstherighttopunish,asa “There are however otheraffronts againstthedignityandauthorityofParliament, whichmaynotfall dignity orauthority. theirjurisdiction? Yes. onlytheHouse LikeaCourt ofCommonshasjurisdiction indeterminingwhatoffencesoffendsits Commons,aParliamentary Committee,orSpeaker, indicatingthebasisuponitfallswithin Does allegationno.3 fallwithinthejurisdiction(exclusiveofHouse orotherwise) of b) at theMember inpersonorder toconstituteanoffenceintermsofprivilege” oftheChairthatanactwhichamountstoaform intimidationthe view doesnotneedtobedirected of hisorherParliamentary dutiesandtherefore wouldconstituteabreach ofprivilege…It istherefore or cooperationfrom aMember ofParliament wouldundoubtedlyhinderthatMember inthefulfillment In 1984Speaker Francis onsimilarpoint: ruled “A threat emanatingfrom anygovernment orpubliccorporationtowithholdinformation department her knowledge. the conductofMinister ifherDirector ofParliamentary Affairswasactingonherbehalfandwith Director ofParliamentary Affairs,whocouldbefoundincontemptforintimidationofamemberand 13 12 Montréal-Toronto, 2000,p. 67 11 10 Standing Orders oftheHouse ofCommons Canada, Parliament, House ofCommons, House ofCommonsProcedure andPractice Canada, Parliament, House ofCommons, , 2004,S.O.48 , editedby Robert Marleau andCamilleMontpetit, House ofCommons,Ottawa; Chenelière/McGraw-Hill, House ofCommonsDebates: Official Report House ofCommonsDebates: Official Report 12
, October 291980,p.4214 , February 20,1984,p.1560 11 waysareWhen new foundto 10 13 If theSpeaker IV-5 APPENDIX 14 OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER “ Mr Speaker I was going to bring a book with me, which is thick, I was going to bring a book “ Mr Speaker Chenelière/McGraw-Hill, of Commons, Ottawa; House and Camille Montpetit, Marleau Robert , edited by and can the House for getting the matter before procedure This is complex 15 5. On December 8th, The Honourable Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition and Member for Member and Opposition Leader of the Harper, Stephen Honourable 8th, The December 5. On House of Commons Procedure and Practice of Commons Procedure House of Commons, 2004, S.O. 86. of the House Orders Standing 14 121-138 2000, p. Montréal-Toronto, 15 inquire and specifically advise me on this issue. inquire a) or to a matter of privilege and should be dealt with either exclusively 5 related allegation no. Is an contradiction between points to an apparent This allegation is somewhat It vague. and No. Yes Committee or the Speaker? of Commons, a Parliamentary otherwise the House by to also refers It and the content of a document tabled in the House. Period in Questions given answer to Commissioner Ethics business practice and asks the what the member claims should be a standard advise her on this ‘issue”. Office of the Minister’s into the business practices the member is asking the Commissioner to inquire If or within the jurisdiction as to whether that is appropriate or Department, then no comment is offered Commissioner. of the Ethics (TRPs) she has personally issued, recommended or concurred in the decision to issue, the Minister told the to issue, the Minister in the decision or concurred she has personally issued, recommended (TRPs) fact that she appears to know by the is contradicted riding. This issued by TRPs of was no record there House binder of such requests. a Ministerial to point she referred individual members and at one made by of requests by down could be broken and which the Minister, issued by personally TRPs of complete records Keeping I would ask that you business practice. would be an expected and standard surely riding or in any other way, full of all the requests I get from all members of the House, lots of them being from the Leader of the of them being from lots House, all members of the I get from full of all the requests included. yesterday every day, critic. I get requests the opposition leader and from the House from Opposition, side waiting the member’s is usually somebody from there and go back to the lobby, this House When I leave 19, 2004) November (Hansard there.” permits residents temporary many to questions about how in response the Minister the document tabled by In behind their backs and handed out at least a dozenbehind their backs and handed out political donors and campaign permits to her own many ministerial permits out handed how Does he know Minister. Prime This is my question for the workers. 2004) 19, November to her riding and supporters the election campaign?” (Hansard, during said earlier in the House: The Minister Calgary Southwest, requested the following information: “The Immigration Minister told her Liberal Liberal her Minister told Immigration information: “The the following Calgary requested Southwest, permitscolleagues that she would not issue ministerial during the election and then she turned went around, of the become Orders adopted, they are and if the recommendations House be debated in the may then action is to be taken. decides what the House only Ultimately House. under Paper the Notice motion on notice of a substantive may chose to file the member Alternatively, Business. Member Private Allegation no.5 rule might of privilege. Members against a particular alleged breach the Speaker if to even be resorted matters of priority and must be deemed most questions of privilege are as choose this procedure, rarely opportunity. raised at the first
APPENDIX 6 IV- OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER Allegation no.7 tion no.3 above fordescriptionoftheprocedure.) by matter attherequest oftheMinister. Iwouldaskthatyour Office review the Ministers statementsinthis misled theHouse nature andtheCanadian publiconthetrue andextentofyour Office’s involvement inthis regarding herissuing ofaMinister’s toAlina permit Balaican. It therefore appearsthattheMinister has contradicted by your Office,whichhasstatedthatthe Minister’s requestwasonlyforprivate advice by your officeofallallegationsa fullinquiry relatingtoquestionableactivities byherself andherstaff.Thisis member forthehandlingofallegationno. 5? otherwise) Should itbeestablishedby someonethatadeliberateattempttomisinformtheHouse, thenonlya Is there aseparateHouse ofCommonspractice,procedure orconvention (exclusive or c) could findthemselves facingachargeofcontempttheHouse ofCommons. uphold theirrightsandimmunities.If thechargewere disproved thentheoutsidepersonand/orbody aggrieved member/Minister couldraisetheirown questionofprivilege,appealingtotheHouse to However, ifsomeoutsidebodyorpersonwere toaccuseamemberofsomewrongful conduct, the only theHouse couldact,ontheinitiative amemberoftheHouse, following by theSpeaker aruling a deliberateattempttodeceive theHouse. If thatwere and thecase,issuepfprivilegewouldpertain Privilege wouldonlybeinvolved ifitwere demonstratedatleastonaprimafasciebasis,thatthere was many reasons andexplanationsforanyperceived orreal contradictions. doesnotimplyby itselfthatthere hasbeenacontemptcommitted,andtherecontradictory couldbe conclusions astowhether, theyare coherent, consistent,orcontradictory. Thattheymaybeinfact theirjurisdiction? Anyone mayanalysethecontentsofanswers andofdocumentstabledintheHouse andcometo Commons,aParliamentary Committee,orSpeaker, indicatingthebasisuponitfallswithin Does allegationno.5 fallwithinthejurisdiction(exclusiveofHouse orotherwise) of b) thereto, by theSpeaker. afteraruling the House. Therefore, theHouse shoulddealexclusively withanyallegedmisconductoroffencerelated Both theanswering ofaquestioninQuestion Period andthetablingofadocumentare proceedings of Commons, thentheissuecouldinvolve theprivilegesofHouse. answer given by theMinister inQuestion Period andthecontentofadocumenttabledinHouse of If therequest isfortheCommissionertoadviseMsAblonczy onanapparent contradictionbetween an
the Speaker orunderStanding Order 86governing Private Members Business, (See answer toallega 7. On numerous occasionstheMinister hasbothdirectly statedandclearly impliedthatsherequested
of
the
House
can
raise
the
matter
in
the
House
pursuant
to
Standing
order
48
for
determination - IV-7 APPENDIX - OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER 14969-70. 1, 1990, pp. , November House of Commons Debates: Official Report Official of Commons Debates: House
16 of Commons, House Canada, Parliament, c) or (exclusive or convention of Commons practice, procedure a separate House there Is of Privi way of a Question of Commons can be raised by The conduct of a member of the House Yes. otherwise) for the handling of allegations of this nature? Public. an to provide Commissioner is competent or authorized Ethics as to whether the comment is offered No is for someone mislead the Canadian public. That ministers, which may made by opinion on statements is no issue of parliamentary There else to determine. privilege. fall into the could well however, statements to the House making misleading The matter of Ministers by may inadvertently mislead the House Ministers described above. category the House of contempt of at the time they make statements in the accurate are that they believe information or answers providing such date to correct at a later to rise on points of order is common for Ministers It House. or contempt but form part not issues of privilege of a debate that are occurrences misstatements. Such known. time as issues and information becomes over evolvess deliberately set out to mislead Minister alleged that a if it were or contempt would be involved Privilege a member of the House. conduct by That would then be an issue of dishonourable the House. b) or otherwise) of fall within the jurisdiction (exclusive of the House no.7 allegation Does indicating the basis upon it falls within Committee, or Speaker, Commons, a Parliamentary of Commons then only the House mislead the House, the allegation is that the minister deliberately If their jurisdiction? make a finding and determine any disciplinary an opinion, to to be is competent to express measures taken against the Minister. of Commons of Canada, of the House Speaker A. Fraser, a ruling on a question of privilege, John In and only the can examine the conduct of its Members the House 1, 1990: “Only noted on November decide that an the House Should can take action if it decides action is required. House the to take has in some way committed a contempt, then it is for the House honourable Member steps.” appropriate regard and provide an opinion as to whether they have been misleading to the House and the public and and the to the House been misleading they have as to whether an opinion and provide regard of the code. section 3 (1) violate have therefore a) or dealt with either exclusively of privilege and should be to a matter related no.7 allegation Is by the Minister, an opinion as to whether Commissioner to provide Ethics is asking the Ms Ablonczy Committee or the Speaker? a Parliamentary of Commons, otherwise the House by and the Canadian has misled the House contradictorymaking apparently the House, statements in motion pursuant to Standing way of notice of a substantive 48 or by Orders lege pursuant to Standing 3 for details on these procedures) to allegation no. response 86. (See Order 16
APPENDIX 8 IV- OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER APPENDIXV 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No. Office oftheDeputy Minister Citizenship andImmigration Canada Senior Advisor totheDeputy Minister Diogo, Brigitte Constituency Assistant DeJager, Antoinette Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations Citizenship andImmigration Canada Policy andProgram Advisor Cronin, Niall Citizenship andImmigration Canada Director, Accounting Operations Couture, André Canadian International Development Agency Press Secretary Bureau, France Citizenship andImmigration Canada Immigration Counsellor Bilich, Anna Citizenship andImmigration Canada Director General, Administration andSecurity Belisle, Guy Citizenship andImmigration Canada Ministerial Advisor Beauchamp, Hélène Balaican, Alina Citizenship andImmigration Canada Director General Arnott, Anne Revenue CanadaAgency Special Assistant-Ontario Allin, Byron Citizenship andImmigration Canada Case Management, CaseReview Acting Director Alldridge, Graham Development Canada Human Resources andSkills Special AssistantforOntario Abbott, Katherine N ame
and T itle (4)
T Su ec bpoena u m I nter X X X X X X X X X X Du v ces iew
T ec Su u bpoena m D oc X X X Du u ments ces
V-1 APPENDIX ces ments u Du X X X oc D m bpoena u Su ec T
iew ces v OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER Du X X X X X X X X X X X X X X nter I m u bpoena ec Su T (2) (2) Terry itle (2) T (2) and Wayne
ame N Spokesperson Preparedness and Emergency Safety Public Canada Caroline Levasseur, Hugh Lovekins, Ernie Lustig, Campaign Manager Simone MacAndrew, Canada Lanouette, Robert Corporate Security Director, Canada and Immigration Citizenship Koumoudouros, of Lancaster House Ian Laird, Lampert, Leigh A. Advisor Special M.P. P.C., Irwin Cotler, Office of Honourable of General and Attorney of Justice Minister Jenny Hooper, Office Assistant, Minister’s Personal Canada and Immigration Citizenship Dexter Jonas, Counsellor Immigration Canada and Immigration Citizenship Canada Justice Law Representative, Family Enforcement Law and Agreements Family Assistance Unit Derik Hodgson, Environment Public Director, Canada and Immigration Citizenship Cases Analyst, Immigration Canada and Immigration Citizenship Louise Gravel, Resources Human General, Director Canada and Immigration Citizenship Richard Paul Gravelle, Michael Fernandez, Ganim, Finance General, Director Canada and Immigration Citizenship Melissa Gomes, Louise Down, Case Review Advisor, Ministerial Canada Immigration and Citizenship 27 28 29 30 26 23 24 25 21 22 20 18 19 15 16 17 No. 14
APPENDIX V-2 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER (#):Number ofsubpoenas issued 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 No. Wons, Ihor Office ofDon Bell, M.P., North Smith, Geoff Singh, Harjit Minister ofCitizenship andImmigration Canada Sgro, Judy Schmidt, Suzanne Schmeing, Claudia Robert, Rocheleau, Marjolaine Prime Minister’s Office Deputy ChiefofStaff, Operations Reid, Scott Psihogios, Peter Citizenship andImmigration Canada Chief Information OfficerandDirector General Poole, Steven Citizenship andImmigration Canada Clerk Pineault, Francine Pena, Rossanna Citizenship andImmigration Canada Senior Advisor, CaseManagement Ouellette, René Mulholland, Howard McFarland, Lynn Constituency OfficeManager Marangoni, Emily N ame
Yves-Cyrville and (2) (2) (2) (2) T itle Vancouver T Su ec bpoena u m I nter X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Du v ces iew
T ec Su u bpoena m D oc X Du u ments ces
V-3 APPENDIX
OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER APPENDIXVI I **Covered through Parliamentary envelope GRAND Translation (Parliamentary UPS Courier Gillespie Cornell Catana Stikeman Elliott LLB RDM Consulting Goodmans LLP Borden LLP LadnerGervais Borden LLP LadnerGervais Digital Printing (HoC Information Services) T P & ADMINISTRATION T C T L T Fact n egal otal otal otal otal o v u estigation rt
Finding I R nterpretations eporting TOTAL Ex rint pense Translation Bureau) S er R v eport ices $ 170,747.39 $ 120,500.00 $ 120,500.00 $ 42,325.00 $ 10,750.00 $ 14,875.00 $ 11,660.00 $ 2,096.90 $ 5,825.49 $ 2,001.40 $ 5,040.00 $ 5,770.70 A A A A mo mo mo mo $ 95.50 $ 54.79 u u u u nt nt nt nt ** VI-1 APPENDIX
OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER APPENDIXVII H P of thiscase…” Response: “Ihave askedthatindependentECtoreview allthe aspects Involvement ofMinister’s staffonleave inimmigrationfiles Response: “TheECwillreview thismatter(Deputy PM).” F Response: “…IpersonallyaskedtheECtoreview thewholeprocess.” campaign office Staff conducting businessin Immigration Department Minister’s New Issues: Response: Minister askedtheECtoreview thematter. position. EC andusestheterm‘inquiry’ inresponse toLeaderofOfficialOp PM repeats thatitistheMinister whohasreferred thematterto bers. question. Thistermwasrepeated several timesby Opposition mem Opposition Deputy Leadertwiceusestheterm‘investigation’ ina her Parliamentary Secretary. Minister confirmsherown initiative usingthesamewords usedby matter.” Minister “hasaskedthe[Ethics Commissioner(EC)]tolookatthis Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary announcesintheHouse thatthe TemporaryIssuance of Residence Permit (TRP) toMsBalaican Only issue: Commons Question Period andthelineofresponses. This analysisfollows onlytheevolution ofthe various issues raised inthe House of C eriod o ailure toreport presence ofanillegal immigrant omments omments u se
o , N , f C f
o v ommons ember –
K e y
P 15 oints D to ebates D ecember , A , nal y 14,2004 sis
o f f iss u es
raised - - Nov. 22,p. 1648 Nov. 19,p. 1603 Nov. 19,pp. 1595-1598; Nov. 18,pp. 1547-1549; Nov. 18,pp. 1545-1546 Nov. 17,p. 1479 Nov. 17,pp. 1478-1479 Nov. 15,p. 1333 dates ofquotationsintheDebates Dates and pagenumbersrefer tothe D ebates
d u ring Qu estion
VII-1 APPENDIX 1725-1726 23, pp. Nov. 1811, 1813 24, pp. Nov. 1918 25, p. Nov. 2033 29, p. Nov. 2105 30, p. Nov. 2128 01, p. Dec. 2130 01, p. Dec. 1651 p. 22, Nov. OFFICE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER - await a will We
Issue: qualifica women with professional applications from Immigration tions and experience Commissioner and I have an independent Ethics have “We Response: back.” the file and report asked him to review (TRP) to the I referred “The issue to which the member refers Response: Commissioner.” Ethics response.” Issue: Permit Residence to couples in relation Separating Temporary issue: New per riding of immigration permits Distribution 1st ) Report tabled on December (Note: asked the not them, have clearly indicated, I, I have “As Responses: of ethics on or any breach any improprieties were EC to see if there seek the advice and “to here.” been raised any of the issues that have Commissioner.” of the Ethics issue: New in strip club owners assistant to personally meet with strip Political clubs these matters to the EC.” referred “…I have Response: workers to campaign treatment the general issue of preferential On to the EC. the report referred have “We Response: issue: New on immigration information staff to divulge confidential Directing offices to MP’s “…this matter has been also answered, PM The Deputy Response: to the EC.” referred Minister’s staff travel expenses staff travel Minister’s be looking at that the EC will members me assure “…let Response: been raised.” that have all the issues
APPENDIX VII-2 OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER ing basisandnever has.” PS andDeputy PManswered fortheGovernment. during thecampaign. the ECquestionof numberofministerial permits issued Minister’s misleadingtheHouse withrespect tohavingreferred to New issue: response.” Response: “Ihave askedtheECtodohiswork, andIwillawaithis What theMinister askedoftheEC Issue: Response: “Ireferred theissueinquestiontoEC.” how manyinherown riding Number ofministerial permits issuedinthelastelection,including Issue: I have askedhimtoreport back.” Response: “Ireferred theissueofthisindividualpermittoECand Ethics Commissioner’s investigation Minister’s misleadingtheHouse withrespect tothescopeof New issue: what hewillexamine.” PM’s response: “…theECistheonetodecide onhismandate, ETHI appearance Nature ofMsSgro’s request toEthics Commissioner, following New issue: is lookingintoitandwillmakeafullreport, atherrequest.” PM’s response: “TheMinister hasreferred thismattertotheEC,who Chief ofstaffconductingbusinessinstrip clubs Issue: Response: “My doesnotkeepstatisticsonaridingby rid department by postalcode Request fordistribution ofimmigrationpermits by riding oratleast New issue:
- See evidenceofmeetingno. 7:http:// discusses the process of the Sgro inquiry. appears before ETHICommitteeand On December 8,Ethics Commissioner teePublication.aspx?SourceId=96730 www.parl.gc.ca/committee/Commit Dec. 02,pp. 2205-2206 Dec. 10,pp. 2606-2607 Dec. 09,p. 2523 Dec. 09,p. 2522 Dec. 09,p. 2520-2521 Dec. 09,p. 2520 Dec. 07,p. 2381 - VII-3 APPENDIX
OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER
STATISTICS ON MATERIAL E STATISTICSMATERIAL ON APPENDIX VIII TOTAL In relation toH.Singh C. Papers obtainedundersubpoena Transcripts A. Testimonies takenunderoath . From ofCitizenship theDepartment and Immigration inrelation totravel expenses F. From theofficeofMinister andfrom the ofCitizenship Department andImmigration In relation toS.D.Ri E. D. Supporting exhibits B. . E-mails G. N ature of evidence evidence atureof -
D escription X AMINED No. ofdocuments 60,046 60,000 42 4 No. ofpages 14,758 1650 3768 5950 1010 2055 325 VIII-1 APPENDIX
OFFICE OFTHE ETHICSCOMMISSIONER Ethics CommissionerofCanada Bernard J.Shapiro Cordially, I amwritinginresponse toyour letterofNovember 15,2004regarding your decisiontogranta Dear MsSgro, Ottawa, Ontario K1A0A6 Confederation Building, Room 207 House ofCommons The Honourable Judy Sgro, MP May 2,2005 APPENDIXIX staff didnot. arising from suchindividuals.In thiscase,itappearsthatyou have actedappropriately butthatyour ontheirbehalforarefusalseeking your by intervention bothyou andyour stafftoconsiderrequests which couldonlyhave beenavoided by notacceptingcampaignvolunteers whowere simultaneously Thus, your staffforwhomyou bearresponsibility did,infact,placeyou inaconflictofinterest -one Balaican, membersofyour staffdidknow ofthis. On theotherhand,itisalsocleartomethatwhileyou were notaware ofthevolunteer statusofMs tent withthecriteriathatyou have beenusinginyour role asMinister. and work permitforher, andthatthegrounds uponwhichyou madethisdecisionwere entirely consis not know thatMsBalaican wasavolunteer inyour campaignofficewhenyou decidedtoissuethe That is,Ibelieve onthebasisofmyown investigation thatyou hadnever metMsBalaican, thatyou did carefully, andIhave foundittocorrespond tomyown understandingofthefactsinalmostall respects. Attached toyour letterofNovember 15,2004isaStatement ofFacts. Ihave reviewed thisStatement Resident Permitrary andwork permittoMsAlinaBalaican. (TRP) Tempo TRP - - IX-1 APPENDIX