Neil Robinson, PEI's Conflict Commissioner photo: CBC

Independent inquiry is only way to clear ethics questions

In a bizarre case of the tail chasing the dog, PEI’s Ethics Commissioner makes a pretense of an impartial finding on the PNP ethics questions.

Conflict of Interest Commissioner Neil Robinson, in a reply to a request from PEI Speaker Kathleen Casey, disagrees with the Auditor General Colin Younker.

The Auditor General had reported in April 2009 that he found dubious ethics in MLAs and other public officials accessing PNP funds.

There were a number of elected officials and senior government officials who had ownership in corporations that received investment capital under the Program. The question of conflict of interest in these situations has been raised. Our review has highlighted the limitations and ambiguity in the Conflict of Interest Act and the Treasury Board Conflict of Interest Guidelines. Report of the Auditor General to the Legislative Assembly 2009

The questions of the AG cannot be resolved by sending the matter back to the person, Neil Robinson, who made the decision to clear the investments in the first place.

That would be akin to a judge hearing an appeal on a case he has decided. Appeals are heard by independent jurists who have not been previously involved in a matter. The point of justice is so fine that a lawyer who draws a contract may not represent a matter at court. He can be called as a witness to the negotiations. Judges who conduct discoveries cannot hear a matter at trial.

Impartial justice must be served and be seen to be served.

Robinson should realize he himself is now in conflict and recuse himself from further public discussion of the Provincial Nominee Program.

The only reasonable resolution to this matter is to submit it to a commission of inquiry headed by an independent judge who can hear evidence and make a finding.

Other than explaining why Robinson made his decision, he can add nothing more of value to the matter without compromising public trust in his office of Conflict Commissioner.

In his audit, the Auditor General identified six MLAs who have received PNP funds, which are essentially no-interest, non-repayable loans or gifts from the Province of PEI. The MLAs named were Bush Dumville, Robert Mitchell and Pat Murphy.

In later testimony this fall in the Public Accounts Committee, Younker said fifteen MLAs had applied and or received PNP funding. The Liberal majority in the PAC would not allow the names to be made public by Younker.

Public confidence in the ethics of PEI’s politicians is at an all-time low. Only a public hearing and finding will clear it up.

In looking to explain himself, Robinson uses faulty logic that would not stand a jurists review.

“He said he believes Younker’s interpretation to be too literal, which would lead to “absurd results.”

“If (section 14) were interpreted and enforced literally, MLAs would not be able to … purchase green fees to play golf on a provincially owned course… MLAs would not be able to purchase wines, beer or spirits at a provincially owned Liquor Control outlet, MLAs would not be able to obtain a driver’s licence or the registration for a motor vehicle, boat, etc.,” Robinson states.

“Each of the foregoing transactions are implied contracts of purchase and sale … such results are clearly absurd and were not intended by the legislature when it passed the act in 1999.” Charlottetown Guardian

Those transactions, green fees and a bottle of booze, are value for dollar transactions available to all Islanders. We pay money and get something back in value.They are conducted in public with no advantage given to the MLA or deputy minister.

Statute and fiduciary trust law are supposed to stop those in power from getting something for nothing, a short description of the PNP scandal.

PNP Thumbnail