SomeConcernsAreMore
ConcernfulThanOthersVille
As we have previously noted, British Columbia's Conflict-Of-Interest Commissioner, Paul Fraser, has a very close relative that has very close ties to,
and currently works for (at her behest as an Order-In-Council appointment), the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark.
In addition, it was more recently noted that the Conflict Commissioner's then law firm gave a considerable sum of money to the Premier of British Columbia's political party
just before he was appointed as the Conflict Commissioner by the previous Premier of British Columbia.
These two facts, which are indisputable, have led to concerns that the Conflict Commissioner may himself, at the very least, be in a perceived conflict of interest when it comes to investigating matters surrounding large donations made by individuals and corporations,
at least some of which appear to be law firms, to the political party of the current Premier of British Columbia.
These facts and concerns led to the Conflict Commissioner making public a response to these concerns which the
Victoria Times Colonists' Les Leyne noted andcommented on in a column published yesterday.
I am of the opinion that specific aspects of the Conflict Commissioner's response and Mr. Leyne's comments (or lack thereof) require further comment.
These include the following:
"...(Commissioner Fraser told Opposition MLA David) Eby it is well past the time when the career choices of one family member should compromise the aspirations of others..."
I find this statement by Mr. Fraser to be an obfuscation given that career choices and aspirations, compromised or otherwise, are not the point here. Instead, the point is that the Commissioner's son works for the Premier and can be fired by her at any time (and/or anyone who succeeds her). Thus, in my opinion at least, this is a situation that is ripe for potential conflict, particularly given that it is within the Commissioner's purview to make a ruling that could negatively affect the Premier's ability to continue on as Premier.
"...(Commissioner Fraser) said he was a partner with the law firm at the time the donations were made (to the BC Liberal Party), but not the named partner in the title.
The 400-lawyer firm was the result of a series of mergers and was a national firm with offices across Canada.
“I was never active in the management of the firm,” Fraser wrote. “I was not the guiding force in administrative decisions made by FMC in Vancouver or nationally during my tenure as partner.”..."
Now that is an interesting argument. Essentially, if I understand correctly, Mr. Fraser is using the Sergeant Schulz 'I know nothing' defense here by saying that it is a large national firm and that he had nothing to do with the running of the firm's operations in British Columbia because he was not a 'named partner'. However, as is implied in his statement, and is clear from the
'biography' page on the official 'Office Of The Conflict Of Interest Commissioner' website, Mr. Fraser was most definitely a 'partner' in the law firm concerned. Therefore, while may not have been a 'guiding force' is Mr. Fraser arguing that, as a partner operating in British Columbia, he was unaware of administrative decisions made by the firm, particularly those involving large political donations to a political party in British Columbia?
"...(Commissioner) Fraser said large law firms have contributed for years to all mainstream political parties and he said his previous firm’s were comparatively modest. “FMC was not well known for its political connections.”..."
Oh boy. Where to start with this one?
First, does not the fact that Mr. Fraser's law firm at the time was not well known for its political connections and that its previous contributions were modest in comparison to other large firms actually make it more noteworthy that his firm gave more than $25,000 to the BC Liberals during the two years before the then BC Liberal Premier appointed him Conflict Commissioner?
Second, if as Mr. Fraser says,
'large law firms have contributed for years to all mainstream political parties', does this not make the fact that Mr. Fraser's former law firm contributed, as Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch has pointed out, ONLY to the BC Liberal Party in the period under consideration even more noteworthy?
****
And with that I will stop this bit of fisking.
Except to finish with one final comment.
Which is that, again in my opinion, Mr. Fraser's response to the previous concerns raised actually raises further concerns about the possibility of, at the very least, a perception that a conflict of interest could arise during his investigation into the propriety of the BC Liberal Premier of British Columbia holding of secret meetings with large donors, corporate or otherwise, to her political party.
_____
And, if anyone thinks I am being unreasonable here, please recall that the Commissioner previously recused himself from investigating an allegation of conflict involving the current Premier of British Columbia once already.
I haven't been able to find an actual copy of the Commissioner's 'response' that Mr. Leyne says was made public. Thus, I have relied on the excerpts that Mr. Leyne and the VTC have published...However, if anyone can point me towards the response in its entirety (NVG?) I would be most grateful...
.
He said he was a partner with the law firm at the time the donations were made, but not the named partner in the title.
The 400-lawyer firm was the result of a series of mergers and was a national firm with offices across Canada.
“I was never active in the management of the firm,” Fraser wrote. “I
was not the guiding force in administrative decisions made by FMC in
Vancouver or nationally during my tenure as partner.”
- See more at:
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/les-leyne-commissioner-says-he-s-not-in-conflict-1.2233880#sthash.SZ6ZrK28.dpuf