Angry in the Great White North

The Ethics Commisioner's report on David Smith is now online.

Boiled down to the essentials, the report clears David Smith on the basis that he no longer owns the company.

That's it.

What about the sole-sourced contracts that were given to Abotech, and then terminated?

Finally, the Ethics Commissioner cannot render findings in relation to the issuance of the sole-source contracts by Consulting and Audit Canada and Abotech Inc. since these events all occurred prior to the Member from Pontiac being elected to the House of Commons and before the Code came into force on October 4, 2004. The Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons does not have a retroactive affect.

So the Ethics Commissioner essentially ignores the contracts. We have no confirmation about whether they were aboriginal set-asides, no information about who signed the contracts, no information about how much money was paid, or any information about the nature of the work.

Like I said, if the Ethics Commissioner had investigated the Sponsorship Program office, he would have said everything was fine even as more than a quarter of a billion dollars was being stuffed into envelopes and handed to Liberal Party friends, and then back to Liberal Party hacks.

What about Frank Brazeau?

Frank Brazeau was interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner, and it seems that both David Smith and Frank Brazeau neglected to tell the whole truth:

During this interview, which was recorded and transcribed, Mr. Brazeau confirmed to my Office that he has known Mr. Smith for a very long time, as they grew up in the same town and were almost the same age. This corresponds to statements made by Mr. Smith in his interview with respect to his relationship with Mr. Brazeau. Mr. Brazeau also told us that he had had little contact with Mr. Smith between 1981 and 2000. During this period, any meetings were purely fortuitous.

The professional relationship between Mr. Brazeau and Mr. Smith began around 2001, when Mr. Brazeau was working for CAC. Mr. Smith, who was then President and sole shareholder of Abotech Inc., asked for a meeting with Mr. Brazeau in order to discuss and enquire more about the process to be followed in order to obtain federal government contracts. Mr. Brazeau informed Mr. Smith of the various parameters that needed to be met in order to be considered by CAC.

In terms of Mr. Brazeau's political involvement, Mr. Brazeau told us that he had been approached by Mr. Smith to help him with his nomination and in the 2004 election campaign. Later on, Mr. Brazeau was elected as Secretary of the Liberal Association in the Pontiac riding in mid-December 2004. He had not been very active and resigned in August 2005.

Grew up in the same town? Check.

Almost the same age? Check.

Closely related cousins, by virtue of Smith's mother and Brazeau's grandmother being sisters? Oops, forgot mention that.

And despite my letter to the Ethics Commissioner, the question was not asked during the interview (at least not according to this summary -- I haven't seen the transcript).

Would the direction of the investigation changed if that nugget of information was revealed? The second paragraph describing the "professional relationship" discussing the "process to be followed in order to obtain federal government contracts" sounds a bit different when it's two closely related family members having the discussion.

But as far as the Ethics Commissioner cared to know, Smith and Brazeau were just coincidently from the same town, and later worked on the political campaign together, and then not all that dilligently.

The reason for interviewing Frank Brazeau in the first place?

The purpose of the interview was to obtain information in regards to the various ties which may have existed between Mr. Smith and Mr. Brazeau.

Well, the most interesting tie of all was simply not reported by either David Smith nor Frank Brazeau. Both men seemed to forget to mention that they were cousins. A less charitable interpretation was that there was an agreement beforehand not to offer that piece of information if asked in order to forestall more questions and a deeper look.

The Ethics Commissioner takes a very mechanical view when it comes to ethical behaviour. Does your name appear in the company documents?

No?

Then everything is fine. The report makes no mention of the fact that Abotech is a home-based business. The Ethics Commissioner does reveal that David Smith signed contracts after June 15, 2003. At the time, before he became a member of parliament, he worked at Public Works, and was advised that since Abotech was receiving government contracts from Public Works, he should sell the company.

He did so, but the company continued to be run in his presence.

Moreoever, he signed documents. Smith claims he was coaching his wife, and signed the documents inadvertantly.

How do you sign a document inadvertantly? Actually, the phrase used in the report was that "he had done so in complete unawareness".

Moreover, he was listed as a director until April 28, 2004, when Industry Canada was informed he would cease acting in that capacity. Why was he a director at a company for almost a year after he was supposed to cut ties?

David Smith says he doesn't know why, but thinks the documents were filed at fiscal year end (April 2004) instead of immediately (June 2003).

Unaware that he was still a director and unaware that his was signing documents? If the Ethics Commissioner understood that Abotech was being run out of the kitchen, then he might have thought to consider just how reasonable that excuse sounds.

The bottom line is that despite documentary evidence in possession of the Ethics Commissioner that David Smith was active in the company after he was supposed to cut ties, Bernard Shapiro is all too eager to accept any excuse provided.

Moreover, the Ethics Commissioner was either unaware or uninterested in details about Abotech's business or the nature Frank Brazeau's relationship, details that would require a deeper look into the situation.

Finally, the Ethics Commissioner is either unable or unwilling to study the actual contracts in question.

The report is useless. The conclusions are a joke. And remember, David Smith and Frank Brazeau both declined to fully disclose their "various ties" when they spoke to the Ethics Commissioner, and that bears repeating:

The purpose of the interview was to obtain information in regards to the various ties which may have existed between Mr. Smith and Mr. Brazeau.

During this interview, which was recorded and transcribed, Mr. Brazeau confirmed to my Office that he has known Mr. Smith for a very long time, as they grew up in the same town and were almost the same age. This corresponds to statements made by Mr. Smith in his interview with respect to his relationship with Mr. Brazeau.

No mention of a family relationship by either man. That is not an oversight. That is a conscious decision to omit a fact relevant to the investigation, perhaps in the hope of undermining it.

That in itself is unethical behaviour.

And yet I am not surprised that Bernard Shapiro could not spot an unethical act being performed right in front of him.