BC MLA challenges Conflict of Interest Commissioner

 

I provided to the public full disclosure of every aspect of my submission, including a comprehensive 23-page letter and a binder of 43 supporting documents. The body of work that is represented in my submission involved many months of research on my part, and substantial expense for related legal advice, which I paid out of my own pocket.

 

I was told by Paul Fraser after my initial communication that it was his preference that we not communicate verbally, not meet face to face and that all communications should be in writing.

 

I informed the Commissioner that my submission to him was considered complete on October 18, 2012. I was told by Paul Fraser that all aspects of my submission would be provided to Christy Clark, the member of the Legislative Assembly who was the subject of my request for an investigation.

 

I was never told then, or any time since then, what the process would be for the handling of my request for an investigation. Other than a written acknowledgement, I have had no communication from the Commissioner himself since some time before October 18.

 

Yesterday afternoon, November 8, I received a confidential phone call alleging that Paul Fraser’s son, John Paul Fraser, works for the government as the assistant deputy minister for strategic planning and public engagement at the government’s public affairs bureau. The same person informed me that John Paul Fraser had known Christy Clark for more than 20 years, had volunteered on her leadership campaign, and at one time worked with Mark Marissen (Clark’s former husband) at Burrard Communications Inc. Mr Marissen’s name appears in my submission to the Commissioner.

 

It would be an understatement to say I was stunned by yesterday’s phone call. Nobody had brought these facts to my attention. I did not even know if they were true. I immediately sought legal advice. As a result of discussions with my lawyer, I decided it would be necessary to verify the alleged facts before deciding on my next step.

 

This morning, I was again taken by surprise. I read in this morning’s Vancouver Sun an article stating that Commissioner Paul Fraser’s son, John Paul Fraser, is indeed working for the government in a senior position. Other details I had been given by yesterday’s caller were confirmed in the Vancouver Sun article. This article further stated that the Commissioner had said “he sees no problem investigating an allegation against Premier Christy Clark, even though he is a longtime friend of Clark and works as a senior official within her government.”

 

Until I read the Vancouver Sun article, I had no idea that the Commissioner had made a decision on this matter or

that he had even considered this issue. He certainly never mentioned it to me.

 

The Conflict of Interest Commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislature who has direct accountability to 85 members of the Legislative Assembly.

 

The integrity of our conflict of our interest system depends on public confidence in the system’s impartiality. To paraphrase a well-known legal principle which applies not only to judges but to all administrative decision-makers including the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

 

As a member of the Legislative Assembly, it is imperative that I have the utmost confidence in the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

 

Viewing these facts realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, I believe there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Commissioner.

 

I must stress that at this time I am not making an allegation that the Commissioner is guilty of actual bias. I am simply saying that there is a basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias on these facts which requires that someone other than Paul Fraser carry out the duties under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. As I said, our system requires not only that justice be done, but that justice manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

 

I am troubled by the Commissioner’s failure to disclose these facts to me and seek my input as to whether I considered they raised a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

 

I am also troubled by the fact that instead of contacting me, and seeking my input once it was clear that the facts would become public knowledge, the Commissioner decided he could continue to handle my request for an investigation, without asking me whether I considered that the facts raised a “reasonable apprehension of bias” which might disqualify him.

 

I also think that Premier Clark should have asked the Commissioner to disclose all of these facts to me at the outset so that I could have a meaningful opportunity to consider whether they raise a “reasonable apprehension of bias” which would disqualify the Commissioner.

 

What if these facts had never come to the public attention until long after the Commissioner’s ruling on my request for an investigation? The public is entitled to have confidence in the integrity of the conflict of interest complaint process. So is the Legislature. So am I.