CPC Adwatch: Am I the only one who reads the ethics commissioner's reports?

As noted in OotD, Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis is asking the ethics commissioner to investigate whether the prime minister violated the rules governing appropriate parliamentary conduct by allowing a Conservative Party camera crew to film an ad in his Centre Block office, a request that, while characteristically feisty, appears doomed to failure.

In her report on the case of the Big C-festooned novelty cheques, Mary Dawson concluded that neither the Conflict of Interest Act nor the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons cover conduct that could boost the fortunes of the Conservative -- or, for that matter, any other -- Party, since it isn't a person or a corporation, and thus, is "not caught" by the provisions that bar parliamentarians or public office holders from using the perks of the job to further their -- or their party's -- "private interests":

Unlike the related provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act, sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Code make explicit reference to "another person's or entity's private interest". While the Conservative Party of Canada is not caught by the Act because it is not a corporation and therefore not a "person", it is, nonetheless, an "entity" under the Code. Thus it would appear that those sections could be applied in relation to the Conservative Party of Canada under the Code. 

At the same time, subsection 3(2) of the Code refers only to persons, and not to entities
when it lists the types of actions that could result in furthering private interests. This creates some uncertainty as to whether the term "private interest" can be applied in relation to entities. 

Despite the technical inconsistency between subsection 3(2) and sections 8, 9 and 10 and in the absence of any alternative provisions for entities, I believe that private interests in the case of entities should be understood as applying to the same range of interests as in the case of persons where the examples listed can be applied. In my opinion, the better approach is to apply the same interpretation of "private interest" in the case of entities as for persons under subsection 3(2) of the Code. While the list cannot be applied in its entirety to entities, relevant examples can be found in paragraphs (a) to (d). 

For the same reasons as are set out above in relation to Members, I conclude that the
connection between the use of the ceremonial cheques and other props in question and any increase in the stature or profile of the Conservative Party of Canada is not captured by the concept of "private interest" under the Code.

Now, some might call that a loophole gaping enough to comfortably accommodate an eighteen wheeler, but at the moment, it's not clear whether it was brought into being by unintentional oversight, or the result of a deliberate decision by the parties involved in hammering out the Code of Conduct. Who would, of course, be members of, well, the parties that appear to benefit, at least in theory, from their conspicuous absence from the text.