We could see this one coming after the last Supreme Court judgment.
VANCOUVER, Sept. 21, 2015 /CNW/ – During the 2014 civic election campaign the NPA, through its election materials, and mayoralty candidate Kirk LaPointe, made allegations of impropriety on the part of Mayor Gregor Robertson and Councillor Geoff Meggs in seeking a campaign contribution from CUPE Local 1004 and accepting contributions to Vision Vancouver from Local 1004 and its provincial and national counterparts.
The NPA and Mr. LaPointe acknowledge that Mr. Justice Myers, in a judgment dated April 17, 2015, found that there was “no evidence … that Local 1004’s contribution was anything other than a lawful political contribution”.
The NPA and Mr. LaPointe accept this judgment, withdraw their allegations, and apologize for any harm that may have been caused to the Mayor and Councillor Meggs.
Mayor Robertson and Councillor Meggs are pleased that a comprehensive settlement has been concluded which will result in dismissal of the defamation action and disposal of the appeal of Mr. Justice Myers’ decision. As part of the settlement the defendants have made a contribution towards costs in the defamation action.
As the issues involved in these actions have been resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, it is time to move on. Such being the case, none of the parties to the actions will be commenting on the settlement or the events giving rise to the three lawsuits.
SOURCE Harper Grey LLP
10 responses so far ↓
1 Look Deeper // Sep 21, 2015 at 9:05 pm
Mayor Robertson and Councillor Meggs may be pleased with the decision of the courts but the fact remains that it is entirely inappropriate for a union of civic employees to be making a contribution to any political party running for office in the City. This is a perversion of any sense of conflict of interest. Vision should not be accepting these donations. And they know it.
And before I get flamed by others — I would say the same thing about any companies (e.g. developers) or individuals that do direct business with the City, and that are directly and specifically affected by the decisions of those that they financially support.
This is wrong. Every other level of government recognizes that this is wrong and have implemented contribution limits to prevent material conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest.
2 spartikus // Sep 21, 2015 at 11:34 pm
This is false. Only the federal government has instituted political donation limits. The province of British Columbia does not. In fact the first line of the FAQ of the Elections BC website says: There are no political contribution limits in British Columbia.
Municipal election campaign contribution legislation is provincial. To change it requires action by the legislature in Victoria.
By all means, advocate for a change in the law. But stop pretending legal behaviour isn’t.
3 Mike // Sep 22, 2015 at 11:55 am
I support contribution limits, but what you’re saying is idiotic.
Every single person, corporation and union in the city is directly affected by council’s decisions. By your standard every donation is a conflict of interest.
4 Internet made me obsolete // Sep 22, 2015 at 6:07 pm
I guess it’s a question of human nature versus the law. Most objective observers have no trouble understanding the concept of conflict of interest. Apologists may split hairs (not actually illegal, municipal or provincial jurisdiction, just a no-strings-attached gesture of support, etc,) but a payoff followed by a kickback is corrupt no matter how you massage it. Ask the citizens of Quebec who pay 30% more for government services than anyone else in Canada.
5 spartikus // Sep 22, 2015 at 7:24 pm
Ask the citizens of Quebec who pay 30% more for government services than anyone else in Canada.
More than, for example, Vancouver.
6 jenables // Sep 22, 2015 at 9:13 pm
They aren’t directly employed by them, that is the difference. Just like how people that work for BCLC are not eligible to win bclc prizes. Also, the city itself is ostensibly a non partisan organization.
7 jenables // Sep 22, 2015 at 9:22 pm
From a Vancouver sun article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=8302687
“The NDP would ban corporate and union donations, and strike an all-party committee to consider other changes to how money is donated to the political process.
The Liberals are against such bans, arguing they would require parties to rely on government subsidies funded by taxpayers.”
“B.C. is one of just a few provinces — along with Saskatchewan, P.E.I. and Newfoundland — with essentially no limits on how much money unions, corporations or individuals can give to political parties.
Most provinces limit the amount a person or organization can donate to a party in a year or election campaign, ranging from $30,000 in Alberta to just $100 in Quebec. Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia go even further, banning union and corporate donations entirely.”
Just because something is technically legal does not mean it doesn’t reek of systemic corruption.
8 IanS // Sep 23, 2015 at 9:02 am
I think the point made by Justice Myers in his judgment in Helton v. Robertson, 2015 BCSC 599, is a good one (at para. 36): ” … there is nothing wrong with a politician stating his policy in the hopes of obtaining votes or campaign contributions. There is also nothing untoward with contributions being made by supporters of that position. There can also not be anything wrong with a politician carrying out a campaign promise if elected.” Really, Meggs did nothing more than any politician would do in the same situation.
The queasiness some people (myself included) feel when reading the transcript from the meeting arises more from the observations of the union member afterward, to the effect that the funds were being contributed to “curry favour” with Vision in negotiations and in wanting to show that the union’s support is “not unconditional”. It was those statements that rendered the perceived quid pro quo a little more naked than most of us would like, particularly in the context of a municipal government that we would expect to look after our interests in negotiations with the union.
As pointed out by others here, this is an issue which really ought to be looked at in setting limits to political donations.
FWIW, there are already some legal limits in place, Section 123 of the Criminal Code deals with “Municipal Corruption” and section 123 of the Vancouver Charter deals with “Vote Buying”. See: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-71.html#docCont for the CCode and http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/vanch_02 for the Vancouver Charter.
(And, before one particular poster jumps in to suggest I’m accusing Meggs of contravening one or both of these statutes, I’m not.)
9 peakie // Sep 24, 2015 at 9:55 am
Somewhat related is the recent telling off, at the UBCM of
“Vision Vancouver councillors who meet privately as group likely breaking open meeting rules: lawyer”
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/councillors+meet+privately+likely+breaking+rules+says+lawyer/11385689/story.html
10 jenables // Sep 26, 2015 at 1:43 pm
Apparently texting each other during meetings is a no no as well.