Cue the sleaze, please

If you’re fortunate enough to win one of the 22 seats up for grabs in Nunavut’s Oct. 28 territorial election, you can relax.

From now on, you won’t have to worry much about that annoying little Integrity Act. On May 9, Nunavut MLAs ensured the territory’s ethics law will get far less use in the future than in the past.

Their changes to the Integrity Act, contained in Bill 67, mean the people most likely to learn of MLA wrongdoing will now be forbidden to do anything about it. They rammed it through the assembly with no debate, giving it first, second and third reading in a single afternoon.

Until now, Nunavut’s ethics law said “any person” may ask the Integrity Commissioner for a review of an MLA’s conduct.

The new version of the law changes all that. Under it, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, heads and chairs of Crown corporations, executive assistants and pretty much all legislative assembly support workers are barred from going to the integrity commissioner.

When MLAs voted for this, they ignored the advice of Norman Pickell, the current integrity commissioner.

He had this to say in his last annual report: “Sometimes the only person who knows that a member may have breached the Integrity Act is someone within a department.”

He also said that if MLAs observe the Integrity Act, they have nothing to fear from senior GN officials: “As long as a member is maintaining a culture of integrity, that member does not need to worry about being scrutinized by anyone, including a government employee.”

Pickell’s report is dated April 18. The assembly didn’t make it public until May 10, the day after they voted for Bill 67.

But never mind all that. MLAs, apparently, know more about ethics than their own ethics advisor, who’s an officer of the legislative assembly.

In presenting Bill 67, Speaker Hunter Tootoo didn’t even try to make a reasoned argument. He said MLAs and senior GN officials have a close working relationship. Therefore, he said, “it is appropriate that such officials not be placed in a position where they may have to submit such requests.”

Why? The public doesn’t care who discovers evidence of corruption. The public’s chief concern is that it be brought to light and investigated.

This amendment may be “appropriate” for MLAs who fear getting caught. But neither Tootoo nor any other MLA explained why this measure is “appropriate” for the public.

Granted, Nunavut’s public service, compared with most, still suffers from inexperience and other weaknesses.

But the legislative assembly suffers from even greater weaknesses, including ignorance-based helplessness and willful blindness. Unlike many MLAs, a senior public servant is more likely to recognize an ethical breach when they see one. And unlike many MLAs, senior public servants are more likely to possess the literacy skills required to write a complaint to the integrity commissioner.

Their “close working relationship” with MLAs is not a valid justification for stopping senior officials from bringing ethics complaints to the integrity commissioner. On the contrary, it’s the most powerful reason why they should be allowed to do so.

On this issue of course, MLAs, aren’t motivated by any concern for the public interest. They’re motivated by a desire to weaken the application of the Integrity Act.

Tootoo made this clear when he said in the house that Bill 67 arose out of “a number of issues” connected to Pickells’ last investigation into the doings of South Baffin MLA Fred Schell.

You may recall the paranoid conspiracy theory that Schell offered this past Nov. 5, after he was found to have breached the act six different ways, including lying under oath. If you believe him, it wasn’t his fault at all. It was all the fault of the premier and her shadowy cabal of scheming staff workers and senior civil servants.

But even a brief glance at the integrity commissioner’s second report into Schell’s conduct, or the first one, issued October 2011, shows that Schell received due process.

During those two integrity act reviews, Schell was represented by lawyers. He was given a chance to present his side of the story. When there was doubt over a specific allegation, Schell received the benefit of that doubt. Schell was treated fairly.

In spite of all that, MLAs accepted most of Schell’s rubbish. At the same time, they rejected the integrity commissioner’s advice.

So cue the sleaze, MLAs. Unless you’re unbearably stupid or blatant, you won’t get caught. You’ve just voted yourselves a licence to corrupt. JB