Tim Houston, CPA

MLA Pictou East

Leader, PC Party of Nova Scotia

Hon. Joseph P. Kennedy

P.O. Box 1617
Halifax, NS B3J 1X5

July 31, 2020

Dear Hon. Justice Kennedy,

I am writing pursuant to section 29 of the Conflict of Interest Act, SNS 2010, c 35 [the “Act”], which
reads as follows:

“The Commissioner may take such steps as are necessary to promote the understanding by
members and public employees of their duties under the Act including preparing and
disseminating written information concerning their obligations under the Act.”

As such, I am requesting that a review be conducted with respect to Minister Mark Furey’s
participation, on behalf of the province, in discussions surrounding any investigation, review or inquiry
into the tragedies that occurred on April 18 and 19. The public has raised several concerns related
to this perceived conflict and I believe, to uphold dignity, integrity and respect in our justice system
and in democracy, it is incumbent upon you, under section 29, to promote to the public an
understanding of what circumstances are tantamount to conflicts and how to avoid them.

Section 18 of the Act states that:

“Ministers and ministerial assistants shall

(c) avoid situations where a conflict of interest or a reasonable perception of a conflict of

interest could arise between the minister or ministerial assistant’s public duties and private
interests.”

I understand that the Minister of Justice worked for the RCMP for over 30 years, with roles that,
according to his LinkedIn page, included “District Commander.” The Minister has confirmed that he
sought your opinion in the past with respect to the matter of Glen Assoun, seeking guidance on a
real or perceived conflict of interest.

In the particular fact scenario of the Assoun matter, you found that it appeared there was “no real
conflict of interest.” You also found that as the matter progressed, there was a “danger that the public
would perceive a conflict of interest.”
As you are aware, the mere reasonable perception of a conflict is in breach of the Act. To the issue
of perception, you discussed whether it could be adequately addressed. In your decision, you state
that the first step in addressing the perception of a conflict is “identifying the problem and seeking an
objective assessment.”

The Minister may have taken steps to minimize the concerns related to a perception of conflict in the
Assoun matter; however, the issue at hand involves different facts, unrelated to Mr. Assoun. As you
noted, at no time did Minister Furey investigate or have access to the documents at issue related to
Mr. Assoun.

It is my understanding that simply being cleared of a conflict in one matter, with different facts does
not absolve a Minister from conflicts in other, unrelated matters, as the Minister has publicly
suggested. He has used this clearance to suggest that it provides blanket protection on matters of
conflict relating to the RCMP. When asked about the conflict on May 14, Minister Furey stated:

“I reached out to the Conflicts Commissioner on a previous file...the Assoun file and in general
terms, the Conflicts Commissioner indicated at that time that by the very nature of my role in
my previous work experience, that in itself did not place me in a conflict of interest.

I don’t feel that I’m in conflict with this file. I’m satisfied based on what the Conflicts
Commissioner shared in his previous finding.”

Your findings in Minister Furey’s prior conflict referral, acknowledged that as Minister of Justice,
Minister Furey is responsible to the people of Nova Scotia for the functioning of the RCMP. The issue
of the functioning of the RCMP is at the very heart of the decisions on the how and what to examine
in the aftermath of the Portapique tragedy.

The April tragedy can be distinguished from Assoun, in that Minister Furey is a compellable witness
in the Portapique inquiry. Given the subject matter of any investigation into the events would examine
the role of the RCMP, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that the more comprehensive the process
(i.e. an inquiry) the more likely Minister Furey would have been compelled to give evidence. The
Minister knew or ought to have known that he would be a compellable witness. The fact that the
Minister was participating in any capacity in making a determination on a process in which he could
be forced to testify, in and of itself establishes a conflict, or, at the very least, the reasonable
perception of a conflict.

Additionally, any in-depth inquiry would likely examine rural policing policies, of which, Minister Furey
may or may not have been a part of developing in his prior self described roles as both “District
Commander” and as “Policing Consultant - advisor the Minister and Deputy Minister.” At the very
least, as a District Commander, he likely would have overseen many of the aspects of rural policing
that should reasonably be discussed during any investigation.

I understand that a District Commander is among the top RCMP executives for a policing district. My
belief is that they wouldn’t police, per se, but rather exercise executive functions including community
outreach, staffing needs, budgets, along with a heavy HR component. While in that capacity, he likely
would have been responsible for approving budgets.

There have been suggestions of a practice in rural policing called “risk it out” in which supervisors
allegedly refuse to authorize overtime pay or call in auxiliaries, leaving officers to work with no back
up. Apparently, bonuses can potentially be earned if a department comes in under budget.

2
The RCMP was forced to call in additional support on April 18 and 19, allegedly from as far away as
New Brunswick and yet there was apparently no contact with the closest local police force. As this
aspect of the investigation is discussed, RCMP policy, that Minister Furey may have been involved
in during his prior career, will be a key element.

In any event, in a more in-depth inquiry, policies on staffing that led to the standard scheduling
arrangement would be examined. In other words, an inquiry should mean placing rural policing
practices, staffing and response times under the magnifying glass. If the RCMP were understaffed
that night, the question of “why” would have to be answered at a full inquiry, which could lead to a
discussion on the “risk it out” policy. A policy that Minister Furey, as a former District Commander, is
most likely is not only aware of but may have practiced.

If Minister Furey was involved in implementing this practice, or ever participated in this practice, he
would have an awareness of the safety concerns over which he presided and failed to correct.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate for an individual who had participated in the very practice at
issue, to have any sort of decision-making authority over what would and would not be considered in
relation to the April tragedy.

At the very least, Minister Furey’s prior involvement with the RCMP suggests the reasonable
perception of a conflict. It is unfortunate the Minister chose not to recognize or acknowledge this
potential and refer the matter to you. As you have previously stated, this recognition and referral is
the first step in addressing perceived conflict, the fact that the matter was not referred to you for
review, further supports the allegation of a perceived (or potentially real) conflict.

As such, I would ask that you conduct a thorough conflict review of Minister Furey’s prior involvement
with the RCMP, along with any participation and discussions he had in connection with performing
any investigation into the April tragedy.

I look forward to your findings.

Yours truly,

Tim Houston
Leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party of Nova Scotia