Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Editorial: Let watchdogs do their jobs

A citizen advocacy group, Democracy Watch, is taking the B.C. conflict of interest commissioner to court. The group claims commissioner Paul Fraser ruled incorrectly in dismissing two complaints against Premier Christy Clark.

A citizen advocacy group, Democracy Watch, is taking the B.C. conflict of interest commissioner to court. The group claims commissioner Paul Fraser ruled incorrectly in dismissing two complaints against Premier Christy Clark.

The allegations were that Clark attended high-priced fundraising events held by the B.C. Liberals while accepting a $50,000 salary top-up from the party. This, it was claimed, placed her in a conflict of interest, since she stood to gain, indirectly, from the success of those events. Fraser cleared her of these charges.

The group has also asked the B.C. Supreme Court to rule that the commissioner should have recused himself, because his son is a high-ranking B.C. civil servant. John Paul Fraser is deputy minister of government communications and public engagement.

The merit, if any, of these complaints, is not the issue, though it’s worth noting that David Eby, the NDP MLA who requested a ruling on the premier’s activities, saw no need for the commissioner to step aside because of his son’s job in government.

What does raise a question is whether officers of the legislature should be brought before the courts. These are independent, watchdog investigators appointed by bipartisan MLA panels, and accountable directly to the legislature. They include the auditor general, the privacy commissioner, the child and youth representative and others.

There have been two previous attempts to mount a similar challenge, in Ottawa and the Northwest Territories. On both occasions, the complaints were thrown out on the grounds that parliamentary officers enjoy the same immunity from court oversight as MPs.

That immunity doesn’t extend to criminal allegations, but it covers a wide range of civil matters. MPs cannot be sued for slander regarding anything they say on the floor of the House. They can’t be forced to appear as witnesses in a trial while the House is sitting. They cannot be arrested in civil actions or compelled to sit on a jury.

These and other protections exist because politics is a disputatious business. Also, because it is in the public interest to have issues debated in the freest possible manner.

All of which goes some way to answering the question about officers of the legislature. But not all the way. MPs, after all, do face a form of accountability for their words or actions — at the ballot box.

Conflict commissioners and their colleagues enjoy a more sheltered life. In theory, they can be fired by the legislature for cause. In practice, it’s extremely rare for this to happen (though some are allowed to withdraw when their term is up).

And the reason is evident. Politicians are reluctant to dispute the findings of the watchdogs they appoint. Suppose Fraser had found against Clark. Would a Liberal-dominated legislature have dared remove him?

There is some degree of risk that parliamentary officers might mishandle cases with little fear of retribution. Though whether they are reappointed is another matter.

But against this must be set the difficult nature of the work they do. Their findings are frequently contentious. This newspaper has taken issue with the occasional ruling.

Some officers in particular — for example, the child and youth representative — must deal with horrendously complex matters for which there is no simple answer. If a precedent is set of dragging these officials before the courts whenever someone disagrees with them, we are setting foot on a long, resource-diverting path.

Moreover, in the case at hand — the premier’s attendance at party fundraisers — her actions have already drawn widespread publicity, much of it critical. Democracy Watch has already made its point. It would be better, on balance, to leave the courts out of this.