rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Nigel Wright's meetings with Barrick Gold wrong, but legal

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca in its summer fundraiser today for as little as $5 per month!

While most everyone would say that it is a conflict of interest for Prime Minister Harper's chief of staff Nigel Wright to meet and be lobbied by Barrick Gold or any of the dozens of companies in which he has friends and/or financial or other interests, in almost every case the lobbying is legal.

In fact, in almost every case it is legal for Wright, and every cabinet minister and staff person, and every senior government official, and every MP and senator and their staff, to lobby and make decisions on issues and matters in which they, their families and friends have financial or other interests.

This is all legal because of a huge loophole added in December 2003 by Paul Martin to the federal cabinet ethics law, and that MPs and senators included in 2004-2005 in their new House and Senate ethics codes. Stephen Harper promised in the 2006 election to remove the loophole from the cabinet ethics law but he broke his promise.

Prime Minister Harper put stronger ethics rules into his Accountability Guide for cabinet ministers, but those rules do not apply to cabinet staff, and so far he has ignored every violation of those rules. In addition, the staff of MPs and senators are not covered by any ethics rules (except senior staff in the Leader of the Opposition's office).

The effect of the Martin loophole is that no one is considered to be in a conflict of interest unless they are dealing with a very specific matter such as a merger, takeover, license, approval or contract (and only about 1 per cent of their decisions are about these things).

To put it another way, federal ethics rules do not apply to 99 per cent of the decisions and actions of federal politicians and senior policy-makers.

These very weak rules combined with the very weak enforcement attitude and record of federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson (who has interpreted rules in many cases in very questionable ways that let Cabinet ministers and MPs off-the-hook), and the weak enforcement powers of the Senate Ethics Officer, mean that it is effectively legal for all federal politicians, staff and senior government officials to be unethical.

Ironically, the ethics rules that apply to the most junior government employees require them to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in all their decisions and actions. In other words, the least powerful decision-makers in the federal government
have the strongest ethics rules (although these rules are also not effectively enforced because of the generally weak enforcement attitude and record of internal auditors, senior government officials, and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner).

The Cabinet ethics law (called the Conflict of Interest Act), and the MPs' ethics code, will be reviewed by House committees this fall, and the Senate is also reviewing its code. We can only hope that they will close this huge loophole (and many others) and strengthen enforcement so that everyone involved in federal politics will, finally, be required to be ethical.


Before 2004, ethics rules applied to all the decisions and actions of Cabinet ministers, their staff and senior government officials because they were required to, in every case, avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The rules were almost never enforced because of lapdog ethics officers, but they did exist. In December 2003, Paul Martin put in the loophole that gutted the rules in the Conflict of Interest Act, and Stephen Harper promised in the 2006 election to remove that loophole but he broke his promise. See details in Democracy Watch's December 3, 2010 news release.

Prime Minister Harper put stronger ethics rules into his Accountability Guide for Cabinet ministers, but those rules do not apply to cabinet staff, and he has ignored every violation of those rules. See details here.

In 2004, MPs finally (137 years after Canada became a country) enacted an ethics code for themselves, and senators followed in 2005 with their code. Both MPs and senators included the loophole that Paul Martin put in the cabinet rules, and failed to apply the rules to their staff. See details in Democracy Watch's recent op-ed.

While the Ethics Commissioner has been independent of Cabinet since spring 2004, current Commissioner Mary Dawson and her predecessor Bernard Shapiro (and the lapdog Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson before them, who had no independence or powers), have all let dozens of Cabinet ministers, staff, senior officials, and MPs off the hook for clearly unethical activities. See details here and specifically about Commissioner Dawson here.

The Senate Ethics Officer, like the former Ethics Counsellor, has no independence and very weak enforcement powers. See details here.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.