REGINA - Health Minister Jeremy Cockrill has been found violation of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act in connection to his association with Fortress Windows and Doors.
In a ruling from Conflict of Interest Commissioner Maurice Herauf issued this week, it was found Cockrill violated s.15(5) of the Act through his involvement with Fortress Windows and Doors from June 23, 2021 to December 14, 2021.
According to the Act, s. 15 prohibits all members of the Legislature from participating in government contracts unless doing so is specifically permitted by the Act or another statute.
In his ruling Herauf stated Cockrill “has an interest” in Fortress within the meaning on a.15(3) of the Act due to Fortress being owned by his in-laws, and that he has participated in government contracts Fortress had with Battlefords Housing Authority.
According to Herauf's report document issued Dec. 16, a member participates in a government contract when a member has an interest in a business that is or has a right to become a party to or beneficially interested in the contract. He said he was satisfied Cockrill had such an interest in Fortress, "due to his financial relationship to Fortress, his personal relationship to the business, and his ability to effect the business."
Cockrill had previously disclosed his interest in North Battleford-based Fortress Windows and Doors Ltd. in disclosure documents and had previously advised the Commissioner that Fortress was owned by his in-laws, that he worked for them as a part time employee, that while he at one point was on the management team he is no longer involved in management of the corporation, and as a part time employee had no right to share in the profits apart from taking a salary.
He also had little, if any, contact with customers and was not involved in carrying out SaskHousing contracts, according to the report. Cockrill did disclose his income from Fortress in his public disclosure statements for 2020 and 2021 and also Housing Authority contracts for those years as well as SaskTel contracts in 2021.
Herauf did rule that government contracts did exist with both the Housing Authorites and SaskTel under the Act, and that he had an interest in Fortress until Dec. 14, 2021. Herauf pointed to Cockrill's financial relationship due to his hourly compensation for work performed and year end bonus, his personal relationship to the business through his father in law, and his ability to effect the business through his continued involvement in marketing and Human Resources.
Herauf also turned to the issue of whether s.17 of the Act applied. Under this section, a Member does not contravene the Act where he was not aware of the existence of the government contract, and cannot be reasonably be expected to have been aware.
The commissioner stated in his opinion that this exemption applied to Cockrill's initial election up to March 22, 2021. Cockrill then had 90 days to come in compliance, but Herauf determined Cockrill did not come into compliance during the 90-day time period from March 22, 2021 to June 22, 2021.
Herauf further stated that Cockrill breached the Act up until Dec. 14, 2021:
"While Mr. Cockrill argued that he did not know about Fortress' contract with the Housing Authorities or SaskTel during that time, it is my view that – given his prior knowledge of Fortress's contract with the Housing Authorities and SaskTel – Mr. Cockrill was reasonably expected to have been aware of the existence of the government contracts. Moreover, Mr. Cockrill remain employed with Fortress until August 2021, and then receive the bonus in December 2021. That means that, until December 14, 2021, Mr. Cockrill continued to participate in government contracts, and thereby beached section 15(5) of the Act from June 22, 2021, to December 14, 2021."
As for his recommendations to the Legislative Assembly for a penalty, Herauf recommended the only penalty imposed on Cockrill be a reprimand. He pointed out that Cockrill acted appropriately and sought the advice of his office on disclosure, but no specific advice was sought or provided to him respecting his continued employment at Fortress. Herauf also pointed out that he did not consider Cockrill's breach of the Act to have been intentional or deliberate.
In a separate ruling, Herauf did not find Cockrill in violation of s.15(5) the Act over shares he had held in Helium Evolution or Royal Helium.
While Herauf ruled Cockrill had "participated" in those contracts under the meaning of the Act, the regulations provided an exemption to that participation when helium permits are issued on standard terms that are made available to the public. It was ruled this applied to the helium permits and leases of both Royal Helium and Helium Evolution.
