Commissioner found confusion, but no conflict

Conflicts commissioner David Jones has cleared two cabinet ministers and one former minister of allegations they were in a conflict of interest.

Conflicts commissioner David Jones has cleared two cabinet ministers and one former minister of allegations they were in a conflict of interest.

Jones found the nature of statements made by Jim Kenyon, minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corp., may have caused some confusion over the last two weeks.

In the end, however, the senior lawyer from Edmonton said neither Kenyon, fellow minister Archie Lang nor former minister Peter Jenkins were in a position of conflict of interest, an allegation raised by the Liberal party.

The Liberals accused Kenyon of discussing proposed changes to the Liquor Act with Lang and Jenkins, while they were ministers, and while both owned hotels and had a direct interest in any proposed changes.

“Notwithstanding the confusion caused by Mr. Kenyon’s comments, I am satisfied that neither Mr. Lang nor Mr. Jenkins have been involved in any discussions about the liquor legislation with Mr. Kenyon or any other governmental official since they became minister after the November 2002 election,“ Jones wrote in his nine-page report.

The document was tabled in the legislature Tuesday afternoon by Premier Dennis Fentie.

Fentie asked the conflicts commission a week ago to look into the allegations, as a means of clearing the air of the “wild accusations” made by Liberal Leader Arthur Mitchell and liquor corporation critic Don Inverarity.

Inverarity filed his own complaint with Jones, suggesting Fentie’s was not specific enough.

Kenyon tabled several amendments to the Liquor Act earlier in this spring session of the legislature, including a provision to allow for neighbourhood pubs.

Asked about the changes during question period a couple of weeks ago, Kenyon said he consulted extensively with fellow ministers Lang and Jenkins on the proposed changes.

Four days later, when the legislature reconvened after the weekend, Kenyon immediately told the house the conversations with Lang and Jenkins about the

Liquor Act occurred before the Yukon Party took office in 2002, during the development of the election platform.

But he had already indicated in a separate interview with a CHON-FM reporter that the conversations with his fellow ministers occurred when he took over the liquor corporation portfolio in 2004.

The conflicts commissioner said he spoke with Kenyon, Lang, Jenkins and Inverarity on the matter.

Both Jenkins and Lang were adamant they were keenly aware of potential conflicts when appointed as ministers, and were careful to take the necessary steps to avoid them.

Kenyon’s initial response to Inverarity when he said he spoke with the “ministers” at length could be taken the wrong way, but Kenyon corrected the time line involved it in his subsequent statement to the house, Jones found.

Similarly, Jones also found the language in the radio interview could have been clearer, though he again accepted the clarification delivered to the legislature.

The conflicts commissioner said other than Kenyon’s responses to questions, there was no other evidence presented by the Liberals suggesting a conflict of interest.

Both Mitchell and NDP Leader Todd Hardy said in separate interviews Tuesday afternoon they accept the findings of the conflict commissioner.

Hardy, however, said he found it interesting that he cannot recall the conflicts commissioner ever coming back with a finding of guilty, and there have been a few accusations made over the years involving governments of different stripes.

Perhaps it’s a matter of process, or a requirement for tougher legislation, or simply just a matter of allegations being made in the house without substantial proof, Hardy said.