Lawrence Solomon
National Post
March 27, 2004
The Prime Minister says he is fighting corruption, but he is merely keeping the lid on scandals. The Acres bribery case is one that could blow up
Paul Martin’s spin-filled response to the sponsorship scandal failed to maintain his pre-scandal popularity. His honeymoon as Canada’s dream prime minister abruptly ended only weeks after he assumed power. Corruption, however, has an international as well as a national face, and Canada’s corruption problems have as much of an international character as a national one.
Nationally, the Liberals’ first budget with Mr. Martin as Prime Minister – spun as an anti-corruption, pro-accountability document – provided little of substance. Finance Minister Ralph Goodale rightly declared that “Canadians deserve the utmost in accountability, transparency and value.” His government instead delivered the utmost in obfuscation.
Only one issue – corruption – has the potential to topple Mr. Martin and the Liberals from power. Inexplicably, Mr. Martin’s response to Canada’s greatest scandal in modern times has been a series of largely vapid measures that, even combined, add up to little. If Mr. Martin doesn’t set aside the spin and enshrine real reforms, he risks a fate that was almost unimaginable a mere six months ago: a John-Turner-like toppling of a newly minted golden boy prime minister.
Mr. Martin’s ersatz reforms betray a determination to place himself as the ultimate judge of his own conduct. Yes, he promises that future ethics commissioners for the House of Commons and the Senate will report to Parliament instead of to him. But Mr. Martin would retain the power to appoint cronies as ethics commissioners, and while he promises to give the Senate some say in his immediate choice, he refuses to enshrine that promise in legislation, allowing him to assert control over the position after a re-election, once the furor over corruption subsides.
Yes, Mr. Martin has set up an independent inquiry to look into the sponsorship scandal. But he will not commit to allow it to do its work, and allow Canadians to receive its verdict before asking Canadians to re-elect him in the next election.
Yes, he promises to bring back the position of comptroller-general, abolished a decade ago. But just as Mr. Chretien exerted tight control over his ethics commissioner, Mr. Martin and his Cabinet would both appoint the comptroller-general and have the comptroller-general report solely to them.
And yes, Mr. Martin proposes whistle-blower legislation, to give bureaucrats some measure of protection when they see wrongdoing. But it won’t generally allow knowledge of wrongs to be reported beyond the walls of the federal Cabinet. The legislation envisions the whistle-blower reporting to his own superior, or to the minister in charge of his bureaucracy, rather than going to the police, to the press or to Parliament.
Above all, Mr. Martin wants to hire legions of in-house accountants – people without the tools or inclination to ferret out wrongdoing – instead of simply legislating penalties tough enough to deter wrongdoing, and hiring independent forensic accountants to give the penalties relevance. Mr. Martin wants the illusion of reform.
Although there is no one definition of corruption, most authorities see it largely as a function of government. The Oxford English Dictionary defines corruption as “perversion or destruction of integrity in the discharge of public duties by bribery or favour.” The World Bank defines corruption as “the abuse of public office for private gain.” Most national chapters of Transparency International, the world’s leading anti-corruption organization, agree with the approach of the Hungarian chapter: “By the broadest definition, corruption means the abuse of public power in order to make private profit.” The United Nations Convention against Corruption overwhelmingly concerns itself with the corruption of public officials.
The more government grows, the greater the likelihood of corruption, the greater the need to take corruption seriously by showing there are consequences to wrongdoing. Mr. Martin’s government shows nothing of the kind: It blusters about “zero tolerance” only when caught in the high-profile sponsorship scandal, and pooh-poohs wrongdoing when scandalous behaviour does not make the front pages.
The Liberal government’s underlying tolerance of sleaze shows in the ongoing case of Acres International, a Canadian engineering multinational whose bribery conviction in a $12-billion water megaproject in the African country of Lesotho was recently upheld on appeal. The federal government neither deplored Acres’ behaviour nor cut it off from the public trough. Instead, it rallied to Acres’ defence. Federal officials denigrated the Lesotho court decision that castigated Acres’ “premeditated and carefully planned criminal act,” and our federal government’s man at the World Bank in Washington argued against debarring Acres, despite the bank’s policy of debarring companies that engage “in corrupt or fraudulent practices.” Debarring would disqualify Acres from participating in World Bank contracts.
As far as the federal government is concerned, Acres is a company in good standing. Export Development Canada, a federal Crown corporation that subsidizes exports, refuses to debar Acres, and the Canadian International Development Agency, a federal aid agency that on its own has provided Acres and its affiliates with more than $100-million over the years, only last month affirmed that no penalties were called for: “We will continue to fulfil existing contractual agreements with Acres and will consider new proposals when submitted.”
The federal government’s refusal to treat corruption, wherever it may find it, as a serious offence betrays a culture of corruption. In the Acres case, the very person who deposited Acres’ bribes into the Swiss bank account of a corrupt foreign official, and who enriched himself in the process, was himself a Canadian federal official, appointed by the federal Cabinet and abusing his official capacity as Canada’s honorary consul to Lesotho. The government’s evident reaction: “So what?”
Mr. Martin hopes his current scandal problem blows over by election day, and it may. But because he is only working to keep a lid on scandals, rather than eliminating them, new ones may well explode in his face. The World Bank’s pursuit of Acres continues apace, for example, and, because it is the world’s single-most-important case involving international corruption, it continues to be followed by the international press. A World Bank decision to debar Acres could come down during the coming federal election campaign.
Mr. Martin might then need to explain to a corruption-weary electorate why his government so ardently defended Acres, and dismissed actions against this company out of hand, when the Lesotho courts, and the World Bank investigation, held Acres to a higher standard.
Lawrence Solomon is the executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation.; LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Re: Martin’s Problem (Corruption at Home and Abroad), Lawrence Solomon, March 27.
We are disappointed that Financial Post readers have once again been subjected to Lawrence Solomon‘s biased attacks against Acres International. The Post’s decision to allow Mr. Solomon to recycle the same unfair and inflammatory accusations made by the same writer in the same space last January serves only to mislead Canadians about the actions of their government and to misrepresent a Canadian company that has implemented one of the most comprehensive processes among our peers to ensure transparency, fair play and good governance.
Contrary to Mr. Solomon’s assertions, Acres asked for and received nothing more than the assistance of the Government of Canada in obtaining due process, something to which we believe all Canadian citizens and Canadian companies should be entitled.
Acres is grateful for the support we received and places a priority on working with government to resolve the issue and to move forward. We have co-operated with the judicial process in Lesotho at every stage, and we were deeply disappointed that the Lesotho Appeal Court overturned only one of the two counts that were subject to appeal. Nevertheless, we have agreed to pay the onerous fine of $2.9-million, and will fulfill our commitment to do so.
Acres will also continue to co-operate with the World Bank in a professional manner.
Above all, Acres will remain focused on our commitment to honest and ethical business practices both within our company and throughout the entire industry. As Mr. Solomon already knows, the decision by Export Development Canada to do business with Acres is based on a thorough, independent review of systems put in place by Acres and on their assessment that these systems are fully consistent with international best practices.
Mr. Solomon’s continued, baseless attacks are deceiving to Canadians and highly discouraging to the hundreds of proud Acres employees who not only conduct themselves with the utmost integrity, but are guiding the creation of similar standards that encourage our entire industry to do the same.
A. Hylton, president, Acres International Limited, Oakville, Ont.
Lawrence Solomon
National Post
March 17, 2004
You have a flat tire. Or you need a tow. Or a boost. Or you’ve run out of gas. If you’re like millions of Canadians, you call the Canadian Automobile Association to get you going again.
Except if you’re on the 407, the electronic toll road north of Toronto. Highway 407 users don’t need these CAA services because the highway operators look after their customers. They’ll change your tire for you for free if it’s flat, or give you a free gallon of gas if you’ve run out. Or a free boost if you’ve stalled, or free windshield wiper fluid if you can’t see.
Highway 407 users don’t need the CAA for another reason as well: Accidents are relatively rare on the 407, as they are on all well maintained toll roads with vanishingly few accidents, another bread and butter CAA business – endorsing tow trucks and accident repairs as “CAA-Approved” – becomes less profitable.
The motoring public has so warmed to Highway 407 and other toll roads that drivers increasingly opt for them. London, England, loves the toll so much that politicians run for office on promises to toll. The U.K. plans to toll all roads, urban or local. Because of the toll road’s growing popularity, some predict that other Western governments in the future may someday follow suit. With all these developments building momentum over the last decade, little wonder that CAA has been making it its mission to stem the trend in Canada and attempt to block all proposed toll roads.
Last week, for example, the Ontario government announced its intention to expand the provincial toll road system. CAA’s Ontario wing immediately criticized the decision. “It is the wrong approach,” lobbyist Mark Arsenault flatly claimed, never mentioning the lives that a toll road system could save. CAA lobbies instead for more free roads, which don’t need to pass a market test to ensure the government isn’t putting through a pork-barrel project. And, although CAA safety experts know of the toll road’s superior safety record, CAA confines itself to recommending better seat belts, better vehicle inspections, and other safety measures that, although important, wouldn’t cause CAA, itself, to become a casualty.
The lengths to which electronic toll road operators go to keeping their roads safe and free flowing – when cars don’t move, toll roads lose revenue – contrasts with the apathy of government operators who run free roads. Highway crews patrol 24/7 along the 407’s entire 108-kilometres, allowing them to quickly aid any driver in distress – its snowplow drivers actually sleep at nearby company yards to make sure they’re ready to go within minutes. In winter, the crews double their number of patrols between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m., Monday to Friday. At all times, the roaming crews remove debris that can cause accidents, and monitor the road for cars that have pulled off the highway, to keep rubbernecking to a minimum.
Other toll roads go even further to ensure public safety and less stressful driving. The Express Lanes tollway built in the median of a freeway outside Los Angeles, for example, bans tractor trailers and other heavy vehicles (apart from fire trucks and other vehicles needed in an emergency). Reserving those lanes for passenger vehicles only makes good economic sense – it both pleases the motorist and saves maintenance expense by protecting the road from the heavy vehicles that cause most of the damage.
In contrast, CAA tells its members to learn to live with the danger and discomfort of driving next to tractor trailers. “Help that passing truck,” it advises. “Keep your eyes on the road ahead and on your mirrors when a truck tries to pass you.” While CAA pays lip-service to a theoretical possibility that toll roads may some day under some conditions have some place in our society, never does it fight for its members’ right to a choice, always does it obstruct plans by governments or the private sector to provide meaningful options for the driving public.
CAA’s financial statements reveal the extent to which it depends on the bad service on free roads that all Canadians have come to unquestioningly accept. About 95% of CAA’s $20-million in annual revenue comes from “member and roadside assistance services.” CAA might as well stand for Canadian Accident Association.
Related articles:
Tolls gather speed
London’s green streets
Toll skeptics be damned: London’s rolling
The toll on business
The take from tolls
Don’t tax, toll: Presentation to the Canadian Home Builders’ Association
London unjammed
Don’t tax, toll
Toll today’s roads, don’t build more
How the free road lobby led us astray
Toll road commentary
Road safety
How to cut highways’ human toll
Mandating the use of evidence-based Programs of Care will mean that insurers, health providers, claimants and the court system will have similar expectations for the type and cost of reasonable and necessary treatment for common accident-related injuries.
Definition:
A Program of Care specifies the appropriate type and timing of healthcare interventions for a specific category of injury or disease. The prime candidate for this treatment is soft tissue injury, but as well conditions such as post traumatic stress disorder, mild traumatic brain injury, or moderate to severe brain injury where the incidence of the condition is fairly high, may also be brought into a Program of Care.
A Program of Care is based upon best practices and the most up to date scientific evidence regarding recovery patterns and effective clinical intervention. It aims to bring both quality and consistency to healthcare delivery and is intended to augment existing clinical guidelines and good clinical judgment.
The Ontario Program of Care for whiplash injuries, the Pre-Approved Frameworks (PAF) for Whiplash Associated Disorder (WAD), Grades I and II, conditions, also offers administrative savings to insurers and providers insofar as the insurer does not require prior approval in order to pay for the PAF services.
The Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board has created a made-in-Alberta solution by several Continuum of Care Models (CCM) for the following injuries:
