ethics

Saturday May 15, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 15, 2021

Trudeau cleared in WE Charity scandal but former finance minister broke conflict law, says ethics watchdog

The federal ethics commissioner has cleared Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of wrongdoing in last summer’s WE Charity scandal.

July 24, 2020

Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion also concluded Trudeau’s finance minister at the time, Bill Morneau, did breach the Conflict of Interest Act when he failed to recuse himself from cabinet deliberations on the summer student grants contract.

In his investigation report, Dion stated that Trudeau — who apologized for not recusing himself from cabinet talks on the now-cancelled program — didn’t have a close relationship with the Kielburger brothers, while Morneau — who faced similar allegations — “placed himself in a conflict of interest on several occasions.”

The Conservatives were swift to denounce the commissioner’s report, titled “Trudeau III” since it’s the third ethics commissioner probe into the PM.

The Liberal government’s decision to give WE Charity a $43 million contract to run a $900 million student grant program quickly blew up into a major scandal last summer following reports that Trudeau and Morneau’s families had ties with the organization.

July 30, 2020

Reporting by CBC News and Canadaland showed the prime minister’s mother Margaret and his brother Alexandre were paid in excess of $300,000 by WE and its entities for speaking engagements over the last four years.

“Although the connection between Mr. Trudeau’s relatives and WE created the appearance of a conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict is insufficient to cause a contravention of the Act’s substantive rules,” wrote Dion.

“The duty to recuse is only required when the public office holder would be in a potential conflict of interest.”

Friday July 31, 2020

Today, Trudeau thanked the commissioner for his work.

“After his full review, the commissioner found that there was no conflict of interest. This confirms what I have been saying from the beginning,” he said.

“At the heart of this initiative was getting support for youth during this pandemic as fast as possible.”

Dion’s report did find that Morneau, who stepped down from cabinet and as an MP in August, had the opportunity to “improperly further WE’s private interests.”

“The examination found the relationship between Mr. Morneau and WE included an unusually high degree of involvement between their representatives and afforded WE unfettered access to the office of the minister of Finance, which amounted to preferential treatment,” wrote Dion. (CBC) 

 

Tuesday March 16, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday March 16, 2021

Kielburgers accuse MPs of holding political trial during testy committee hearing

September 11, 2020

Craig and Marc Kielburger accused a parliamentary committee on Monday of engaging in a political trial as its members grilled the brothers over WE Charity’s operations, including its cancelled deal to run a federal program for student volunteers.

The heated exchange saw the Kielburgers accuse political parties of trying to score points at the expense of children around the world — even as they faced pointed questions from members of the House of Commons ethics committee about their own activities.

Marc Kielburger set the tone by forcefully defending the various WE operations set up over the years — a mix of philanthropic and for-profit entities that he suggested were established in response to outdated restrictions on how Canadian charities can operate.

Friday July 31, 2020

“Let us be clear — this hearing is a trial and a public one at that,” Marc Kielburger said during his opening statement to the committee. “Without recognizing our right to present our own evidence, this committee is trying WE Charity in the court of public opinion and forcing testimony.”

He blasted NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus in particular for having asked the RCMP and the Canada Revenue Agency to look into the organization’s operations, and then publicly posting those requests on social media.

He also took aim at the Conservatives and the Liberal government, which he accused of hiding “behind a children’s charity by letting it take the fall for their political decisions — and the opposition allowed them.”

Throughout the meeting, MPs questioned how the Liberal government and WE agreed to put the charity in charge of a multimillion-dollar program designed to cover the education costs of students who volunteer during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also asked questions about the state of WE today.

The brothers were asked to add up the fees they’ve paid to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and members of his family to speak at different WE events over the years, and to respond to allegations that WE engaged in questionable lobbying and fundraising activities

Ethics commissioner Mario Dion is now investigating Trudeau and Morneau for a potential conflict of interest. Both have apologized for not having recused themselves from cabinet discussions of the WE contract.

“We didn’t advise the prime minister and Mr. Morneau not to recuse themselves,” Marc Kielburger said, arguing that WE was not responsible for political choices.

“We never prorogued Parliament. We were not involved in the decision to filibuster this committee last fall. This is a political scandal for the government, not for WE Charity.”

Liberal MP Francesco Sorbara in turn accused the Kielburgers of not taking responsibility for their own actions. “You want to throw blame on everyone else and not take responsibility for things that have happened within your control,” he said. (Continued: CBC)

Sketch of three rich kids with a lot of rich adult defenders

 

Friday July 31, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday July 31, 2020

Whether Trudeau’s testimony worked or not, the winds of change are blowing for Liberals

October 23, 2000

Jean Chrétien used to tell his cabinet a folksy allegory that suggests how he would have handled the WE affair.

A farmer is covered in cow dung but knows that if he tries to wipe the manure away while fresh, he will spread it all around and make it worse. So he waits until it dries and then brushes it off.

Reprehensible perhaps but that’s how he survived in politics for 40 years.

Justin Trudeau adopted a different approach, agreeing to appear before the House finance committee, while the muck is still moist.

Dec. 15, 2006

No prime minister in my nearly two decades on Parliament Hill has appeared before a House committee (Stephen Harper once testified before a Senate committee on his reform bill).

More wily operators were aware that no good could come from allowing lowly opposition MPs a free kick at the prime minister.

As a defensive manoeuvre, it is unproven.

But it is a measure of how much trouble Trudeau’s government is in that he believed only he could come to its deliverance. What self-assurance. What swagger.

July 24, 2020

But the Liberals need a game-changer, and Trudeau clearly believed he could be it.

The verdict is still out on whether he succeeded but he emerged from his 90 minutes before the finance committee relatively unscathed. It’s possible he even convinced some people of his own innocence, beyond the failure to recuse himself from the awarding of a lucrative contribution agreement to the WE Charity.

“I didn’t do anything to influence that – I didn’t even know it had been made until May 8,” he said, by which point the public service was already recommending WE.

A hirsute-looking prime minister said he pulled the WE contract from the cabinet agenda on May 8 because he knew there would be questions asked about his links to WE (it finally went to cabinet on May 22). But he insisted WE received no preferential treatment.

On its own merits, Trudeau might be able to brush off the WE affair without too much muck being spread around.

But political sins, like sweaty feet, rarely come singly. (National Post) 

 

Wednesday July 22, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday July 22, 2020

Ethical questions abound in politics

July 16, 2020

For the third time since he became prime minister in 2015, the behaviour of Justin Trudeau is being investigated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The investigation involves a proposed non-tendered contract worth $19 million to the WE Charity, which was supposed to operate a new student-volunteer program. Trudeau had participated in the cabinet meeting that approved the contract.

Because both the prime minister and his wife had a close relationship with the charity, the opposition complained to the ethics commissioner that Trudeau was guilty of violating the conflict of interest law. Days later it was revealed that Trudeau’s mother and brother had been paid nearly $300,000 for multiple speaking engagements at WE Charity events. This seems to be a classic case of confusing or intermingling private interests with the public interest, which is the essential nature of a conflict of interest.

The case caused me to reflect on why politicians appear to have such difficulty reasoning and acting ethically. Here are some random thoughts:

July 11, 2020

There is illegal and unethical behaviour in all occupations, but politics seems to involve greater temptations and risks that legal rules and ethical standards will be violated.

Politics involves contention over competing ideas and interests, together with competition to gain power, and these fundamental facts can override respect for ethical norms. Politicians and their advisers take the pragmatic view that if they do not break or bend the rules, they will lose ground to their opponents. They tell themselves that after they win, they will behave in an exemplary ethical manner, but then re-election becomes a strong motivation.

Most politicians enter public life for altruistic reasons of public service. A minority, however, become corrupted by the political process. They develop the view that politics is a game and to the winner go the spoils. Individuals from a famous political family, or long-serving politicians, may develop the view that they are, as a former Liberal cabinet minister declared, “entitled to their entitlements.” Rewarding family and “political friends” is seen as a perk of the job. (Winnipeg Free Press) 

 

Thursday September 12, 2019

September 12, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday September 12, 2019

There is deep angst in Canada ahead of this fall’s election

We may have voted for hope, optimism and sunny days in 2015 but Canadians don’t appear to be very optimistic heading into the Fall of 2019.

August 14, 2014

Canadians do see a strong economy right now. Assessment of their personal finances has gone from 32 per cent positive (Q4 2015) to 46 per cent today and their assessment of their job security has grown from 39 per cent positive (Q4 2015) to 52 per cent today.

On the eve of the writ dropping, one would assume from these numbers that the federal Liberals would very much like to have the 2019 ballot question be: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

But it won’t be, because despite these views and some impressive economic numbers at the macro level, Canadians aren’t optimistic about their longer-term prospects. Pocket-book issues and concerns over affordability are a common thread connecting most of the top issues Canadians identify as priorities: healthcare, the economy, housing, climate change, and taxes.

Our concerns are more than economic. There is deep angst about the direction of the country. Canadians are questioning the value and the very role of government, politicians and political parties in their lives and many politicians are going to run into the buzz saw of growing cynicism once they start knocking on doors. For starters:

January 3, 2014

* 67 per cent (unchanged since 2016) agree that the country’s economy is rigged to the advantage of the rich and powerful

* 61 per cent (vs. 56 per cent in 2016) agree that “traditional parties and politicians don’t care about people like me”

* 57 per cent (vs. in 47 per cent November 2016) say the country is “going in the wrong direction”

* 52 per cent (up dramatically from 37 per cent in 2016) agree that “Canadian society is broken”

This level of angst and cynicism among Canadians is going to pose a challenge for all political parties. Delivering policy ideas along with messaging to motivate supporter turn-out will be difficult, and they will need to find a balance between positive, forward-looking messages and empathetic, “we get you now” messages.

Imagine if you were a federal candidate hearing this at the door while looking for a vote: “I think the economy is stacked against me, I don’t think you care about me, I think our society is broken and our country is headed in the wrong direction. Tell me how you are going to fix this and why I should vote for you?” (Global News)