Dermod Travis: Conflict commissioner goes easy on Pimm

In a 40-page opinion released last week, B.C. conflict-of-interest commissioner Paul Fraser pretty well cleared former agriculture minister Pat Pimm of any wrongdoing with respect to his obligations under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, despite the odd “tsk, tsk” here and there.

Pimm had requested the opinion following concerns over his alleged interference in a file before the Agricultural Land Commission last year related to a property in Fort St. John.

article continues below

Ironically, in reading the opinion, it seems as though Fraser conducted his investigation from the perspective that ALC chairman Richard Bullock was the subject of it and not Pimm.

Consider this question posed to Bullock by the commissioner: “Was all of that general conversation, conversation you thought was part of the conspiracy somehow to come down on you and show his [Pimm’s] influence?”

Now contrast that with a question posed to Pimm: “But your focus seemed to be on the basis of what would be good for the community, relative to the use of this property and the value that it would bring to the community and to the, if you like, the enjoyment or the cultural enhancement of the community; is that fair?”

Astoundingly, Pimm responded: “That’s exactly accurate, yes.”

Much was made in the commissioner’s report of a site visit to the Fort St. John property by the ALC in May 2013 and the appropriateness — or lack thereof — of Pimm’s presence at that visit. Fraser described it as “pivotal” in the events leading up to Pimm’s request for an opinion from his office.

According to the testimony the commissioner heard, pleasantries were exchanged between Bullock and Pimm; there was some discussions about hockey and developments regarding the Site C dam. It was — in the words of the commissioner — “cordial in tone.”

What exactly did the commissioner expect Bullock to do upon seeing Pimm? Throw a hissy fit in public? The more critical issue for the commissioner should have been: What did the ALC do next?

And in that regard, the ALC was proactive and resolute, preparing a policy statement on the role of elected officials in applications to the ALC that was circulated and posted to the commission’s website.

In that statement, the commission noted: “Elected officials at the provincial and local level have been given specific channels within the ALCA to influence decisions on applications to the ALC.

“Outside of those channels, they should not attempt to influence the ALC with regard to the outcome of a particular application.”

No ambiguity there.

Notably, missing from Fraser’s entire 40-page opinion is one phrase: “ministerial responsibility.”

According to the parliamentary doctrine, “ministers are individually responsible for their own actions and those of their department, including the actions of all officials under their management and direction, whether or not the ministers had prior knowledge. In practice, when errors or wrongdoings are committed by officials under their direction, ministers are responsible for promptly taking the necessary remedial steps and for providing assurances that appropriate corrective action has been taken to prevent reoccurrence.”

It’s why — just a few months before that “pivotal” site visit — aboriginal affairs minister John Duncan resigned from federal cabinet after a review of his constituency office’s correspondence revealed he had written a character reference on behalf of a constituent to the Tax Court of Canada two years earlier.

That review had been prompted by revelations that then-finance minister Jim Flaherty had written the CRTC in 2012 on behalf of a radio-licence applicant, a letter that federal ethics commissioner Mary Dawson ruled “improper.” Dawson also rapped the knuckles of two parliamentary secretaries for “improper letter-writing” as well.

But Duncan’s resignation was notable for something else: his unequivocal acceptance of ministerial responsibility, when he wrote: “I take full responsibility for my actions and the consequences they have brought.”

If Dawson found Flaherty’s letter “improper” and if Duncan knew all on his own that his letter was “not appropriate,” against what measure did Fraser reach the conclusion that emails and other communications from Pimm’s office were just “regrettable misinterpretations resulting from ambiguous language?”

Dermod Travis is the executive director of IntegrityBC.

info@integritybc.ca

Read Related Topics

© Copyright Times Colonist

Comments

NOTE: To post a comment you must have an account with at least one of the following services: Disqus, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ You may then login using your account credentials for that service. If you do not already have an account you may register a new profile with Disqus by first clicking the "Post as" button and then the link: "Don't have one? Register a new profile".

The Times Colonist welcomes your opinions and comments. We do not allow personal attacks, offensive language or unsubstantiated allegations. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher, or see our Terms and Conditions.

comments powered by Disqus

Find out what's happening in your community.