Inside Politics

Conflict of Interest Watch: For Conservative caucus farmers, CWB vote may be an ethical ... wheatfield

by Kady O'Malley Posted: October 24, 2011 5:14 PM Last Updated: October 24, 2011 6:00 PM
One of the Canadian Wheat Board's most impassioned and indefatigable defenders is attempting to open a new front in the battle to spare the CWB from the forcible reorganization that the government has planned for it.

In a members' statement earlier today, NDP MP Pat Martin put prairie farmers within the Conservative caucus on notice that, as far as he's concerned, if they truly believe the agriculture minister's assertion that they will "make more money" if the CWB is abolished, they are "both duty-bound and honour-bound" to recuse themselves from tonight's vote to avoid placing themselves in a conflict of interest:

Mr. Speaker, there is no business case for abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board, and members across find themselves in an untenable Catch-22, because if we believe the minister's supposition that prairie farmers will make more money if they abolish the Canadian Wheat Board, then any prairie farmer, any farmer in the Conservative caucus, would find themselves in a conflict of interest and therefore is both duty-bound and honour-bound to recuse himself, not just from the vote we will be holding tonight, but from any debate that promotes the abolition of the Wheat Board.
They cannot have it both ways. If they believe the minister, then they cannot vote on it. If they accept our point of view that there is no provable material benefit for farmers by abolishing the Wheat Board, then it begs the question, why would we turn the rural prairie economy upside down and on its head if there is no advantage to prairie farmers?
It is a conflict of interest, plain and simple. I refer hon. members to section 8 of the Code of Conduct that governs all of us in this House.
Martin has also sent a letter outlining his concerns to Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson:

111024 - Martin - Letter to CIEC - Conservative Wheat Farmers

For background, here is the pertinent section of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons:

8.  When performing parliamentary duties and functions, a Member shall not act in any way to further his or her private interests or those of a member of the Member's family, or to improperly further another person's or entity's private interests.
So what, in this context, would constitute the furthering of private interests? Well, here's what the Code has to say about that:
(2)   Subject to subsection (3), a Member is considered to further a person's private interests, including his or her own private interests, when the Member's actions result, directly or indirectly, in any of the following

(a)  an increase in, or the preservation of, the value of the person's assets;
(b)  the extinguishment, or reduction in the amount, of the person's liabilities;
(c)  the acquisition of a financial interest by the person;
(d)  an increase in the person's income from a source referred to in subsection 21(2);
(e)  the person becoming a director or officer in a corporation, association or trade union; and
(f)  the person becoming a partner in a partnership.

(3)  For the purpose of this Code, a Member is not considered to further his or her own private interests or the interests of another person if the matter in question

(a) is of general application;
(b) affects the Member or the other person as one of a broad class of the public;
(b.1) consists of being a party to a legal action relating to actions of the Member as a Member of Parliament; or
(c)  concerns the remuneration or benefits of the Member as provided under an Act of Parliament.

Interestingly, at least to those of us who follow these occasional uproars over the parliamentary ethics regime, as far as I can tell, the issue of "furthering personal interests" as grounds for recusal from a vote has yet to come before the commissioner, although she has issued rulings on related matters. 

During the olden pre-Code of Conduct days, the question of when a member should withdraw from debate due to pecuniary interests would have been dealt with under the Standing Orders, which means Dawson may find herself trawling through the Commons archives to determine what, if any, steps should be taken to prevent an inadvertent breach. 

Tags: blackberry jungle, conflict of interest code, ethical ... wheatfields?, mary dawson