References: - Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subsection 24(1) -- [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: A highly publicized case is the one of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was deported to Syria during a stopover in New York while en route from Tunisia to Canada. He was suspected of having links to al-Qaeda. After a year of torture in a Syrian prison and pressure from the Canadian government, he was released. An official inquiry conducted in 2006 by the federal government found U.S immigration officials acted on misleading information from the RCMP (Canada's federal police force), prompting a $10 million settlement and a formal apology from the Canadian government.

References: - Under the rules of the House of Commons, there is a daily "Question Period" during which members of the opposition parties may question ministers.

- The current Prime Minister and Cabinet, elected in January 2006, implemented a process for news conferences changing existing practice in which a journalist would chair the news conference and select questioners from amongst the media in attendance to a system in which members of the media have to sign up on a list, and then the Prime Minister or Cabinet minister chooses from the list which member of the media will be allowed to ask a question.

Peer Review Comments: Prime Minister Stephen Harper's changes to media policy to "maintain media control" have been well documented. Other changes (i.e., in addition to the author's above) include banning the media from attending the repatriation of dead soldiers returning to military bases from Afghanistan in April 2006. Press complain they are not given sufficient access to the prime mnister and his office. Most complaints were made shortly after the prime minister came into office, and it is unclear from media reports if his changes have been long lasting. (If so, the score should be adjusted to 50.)

See: "Freedom of the Press and Prime Minister Harpers Media Policy", Graham Darling, University of Alberta LL.B. student, [ LINK ]" target="_blank">[ LINK ]

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/ccs/nav03.cfm?nav03=48215&nav02=44994&nav01=35499

References: - The Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 24 -- [ LINK ]

- Federal Courts Act ( R.S., 1985, c. F-7 ), subsection 2(1) definition of "federal board, commission or other tribunal" -- [ LINK ]

References: - The score of 75 is given based on a definition of "judiciary" that includes administrative tribunals (agencies, boards, commissions).

- While no fully substantiated evidence exists showing that Canadian courts make partisan rulings or are unwilling to take on politically sensitive issues, there is some fully substantiated evidence that Canadian courts are occasionally unable to enforce their judgments that apply to the executive branch (Cabinet of ministers) of the federal government. See, for example, the judicial review of the Registrar of Lobbyists by Democracy Watch at: [ LINK ]

- There is also fully substantiated evidence that various administrative tribunals that have addressed executive branch (Cabinet of ministers) decisions and actions make partisan rulings, are unwilling to take on politically sensitive issues and are occasionally unable to enforce their judgments. See, for example, the summary of federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro's record between March 2004 and April 2007 at: [ LINK ]

References: - There is no evidence that the Order-in-Council power of the Canadian federal Cabinet (legal name is "Governor-in-Council") has been used in more than a very few cases to avoid constitutionally or legally required legislative approval. However, the score of 75 is given because during the June 2006 to June 2007 time period, the federal Cabinet ordered that the Canada Wheat Board (CWB) end its monopoly on the sale of barley. The order was challenged in Federal Court by the CWB and the Court ruled on July 31, 2007, that the Cabinet must seek the approval of Parliament (the federal legislature) to make this change to the CWB. The federal Cabinet has appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.

See Canadian Press wire article summarizing the situation at: [ LINK ]

See another summary article by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) at: [ LINK ]

References: - Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c. C-46 ) -- [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: For instance, former prime minister Brian Mulroney will be the subject of a full public inquiry in 2008, after a German businessman claimed he paid him CAN$300,000 in cash while he was still a member of parliament. The House of Commons ethics committee also launched a separate probe into the allegations. Mulroney held the top public office between 1984 and 1993.

References: - Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c. C-46 ) -- [ LINK ]

References: - Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Officer Holders -- most assets worth more than $10,000 (US$10,266) are required to be disclosed to the Ethics Commissioner, with a partial list of assets made public -- [ LINK ]

- Conflict of Interest Act (2006, c. 9, s. 2 -- first in force July 9, 2007) -- most assets worth more than $10,000 must be disclosed to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, with a partial list of assets made public -- [ LINK ]

References: - Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Officer Holders -- most assets worth more than $10,000 (US$10,266) are required to be disclosed to the Ethics Commissioner, with a partial list of assets made public -- [ LINK ]

- Conflict of Interest Act (2006, c. 9, s. 2 -- first in force July 9, 2007) -- most assets worth more than $10,000 must be disclosed to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, with a partial list of assets made public -- [ LINK ]

References: - Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Officer Holders -- most assets worth more than $10,000 (US$10,266) are required to be disclosed to the Ethics Commissioner, with a partial list of assets made public -- [ LINK ]

- Conflict of Interest Act (2006, c. 9, s. 2 -- first in force July 9, 2007) -- most assets worth more than $10,000 must be disclosed to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, with a partial list of assets made public -- [ LINK ]

- Conflict of Interest Act (2006, c. 9, s. 2 -- first in force July 9, 2007). Most assets worth more than $10,000 (US$10,266) must be disclosed to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, with a partial list of assets made public. [ LINK ]

- Hopefully the Commissioner will, finally, enforce the asset and liability disclosure requirement properly by conducting at least random audits of disclosure forms.

References: - Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner -- [ LINK ]" target="_blank">[ LINK ]

The Commissioner had no explicit power to executive branch asset disclosures under the old Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Officer Holders -- [ LINK ], but the Code did give the Ethics Commissioner (Bernard Shapiro) the general power in law to administer the Code and he very likely could have conducted audits with this power.

- Office of the Conflidt of Interest and Ethics Commissioner -- http://www.parl.gc.ca/ciec-ccie/en

The Commissioner has no explicit power to executive branch asset disclosures, and the Commissioner (Bernard Shapiro) from March 2004 to April 2007 did not conduct any audits. Te new Commissioner appointed on July 9, 2007, may conduct audits under the general power in law (the Conflict of Interest Act) to administer the Act.

References: - Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders -- [ LINK ]

NOTE: If and when the new Lobbying Act comes into force (it passed Parliament in December 2006 but is awaiting proclamation by Cabinet before it comes into force), the post-employment measures in the Code will be replaced by post-employment provisions in the Lobbying Act.

- Conflict of Interest Act (2006, c. 9, s. 2) -- [ LINK ]

References: - Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders -- [ LINK ]

NOTE: If and when the new Lobbying Act comes into force (it passed Parliament in December 2006 but is awaiting proclamation by Cabinet before it comes into force), the post-employment measures in the Code will be replaced by post-employment provisions in the Lobbying Act (five-year cooling off period for ministers and senior government officials with policy-making power) and in the Conflict of Interest Act ( 2006, c. 9, s. 2 ) for other ministerial staff (one-year cooling off period). [ LINK ]

- Democracy Watch's (2005) court challenge of the Ethics Commissioner documented cases of the Commissioner allowing Cabinet ministers to become lobbyists before their cooling off period of two years was completed, and the Commissioner refusing to provide public reasons as to why the minister had been allowed to become a lobbyist.

See details at: [ LINK ]

There is no evidence that the Commissioner enforced the cooling off period effectively during his term from March 2004 to April 2007.

Peer Review Comments: The new commissioner of lobbying is not yet in place, nor are the changes to lobbying rules.

Peer Review Comments: Through the recent revelations by Karlheinz Shreiber, we learned that even ex-Prime Minister Bryan Mulroney transgressed the law while lobbying for Quebecor to obtain news frequencies for mobile phone networks. He was not properly registered as a lobbyist at that time.

References: - The Ethics Commissioner from March 2004 to April 2007 never issued an interpretation bulletin or any other public ruling concerning gifts and hospitality, and there were several examples annually of members of Parliament (House of Commons and Senate) accepting gifts from interest groups and/or registered lobbyists during this three-year period.

See details in Democracy Watch's news release -- [ LINK ]

- June 30, 2007 column by Barbara Yaffe in Vancouver Sun -- [ LINK ]

- Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (first in force in October 2004) -- [ LINK ]

References: - The Ethics Commissioner between March 2004 and April 2007 never audited even one of the statement of assets of any member of the executive branch of the federal government.

- Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner -- [ LINK ]

The Commissioner had no explicit power to executive branch asset disclosures under the old Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Officer Holders -- [ LINK ]

The Code did give the Ethics Commissioner (Bernard Shapiro) the general power in law to administer the Code and he very likely could have conducted audits with this power.

References: Public Registry for Public Office Holders (Public Office Holders are required to disclose their assets and liabilities to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner within 120 days of being appointed as a Public Office Holder) -- [ LINK ]

References: - Partial asset and liability information can be found by searching the online Public Registry for Public Office Holders (Public Office Holders are required to disclose their assets and liabilities to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner within 120 days of being appointed as a Public Office Holder). -- [ LINK ]

References: - Partial asset and liability information can be found by searching (for free) the online Public Registry for Public Office Holders. (Public Office Holders are required to disclose their assets and liabilities to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner within 120 days of being appointed as a Public Office Holder). [ LINK ]

References: - The federal Ethics Commissioner from March 2004 to April 2007 never issued an interpretation bulletin or any other public ruling concerning the use of government funds or government property for ruling party activities.

See details in Democracy Watch's news release -- [ LINK ]

- Although it did not occur during the study period of June 2006 to June 2007, investigations and criminal charges and prosecutions did occur relating to the so-called "Adscam sponsorship scandal," in which the previous federal Liberal Party government from 1996 to 1999 funnelled more than $150 million (US$154 million) mainly into advertising agencies (mainly in the province of Quebec) to pay supposedly for advertising of the federal government at events and sponsorship of those events.

See the Commission of Inquiry report into the scandal at: [ LINK ]