Jacques Leger writes that, at the moment, we are in a nasty place:
It did not take long for the controversy to blow up. The opposition parties and the media began building a case. Demands for ethics probes and to refer the case to police multiplied as more information came out about sole sourcing and close ties between the PM and his family with WE. The PM admitted not recusing himself, nor did the Finance Minister and both have since apologized. The PM and his spouse have been frequent and highly visible supporters of the charity. The PM’s mother and brother were both paid thousands of dollars per appearance to speak at WE Charity events. Finance Minister Morneau’s daughter works at the Charity. All that was presented as bad “optics” and potential conflicts of interest.
The upshot was that political opponents were asking the public to condemn the PM even though a valuable charity would be sideswiped in the process. Then, it came out that this charity is such that many prominent people, including members of all political tribes, had wanted to associate with it for years. Former Conservative PMs and Ministers, current and former Premiers, Conservative leadership candidates, their spouses and children have participated in their programs, addressed them, funded them, sung their praises, traveled abroad with them and wanted to be seen with them.
What was initially described as a $1B sole source contract eventually was shown to be worth less than $20M to manage $900M of grants to young people. A 2% fee is a low administration charge compared to what the Red Cross, United Way and other charities are paid to administer programs for disasters and the elderly, contracts also granted without bids!
In the end, this is all about optics:
There was so much reported that significant false information became “common knowledge”: the PM’s mother was paid with taxpayer funds; WE was given $1 billion and was going to make a big profit; and the PM was lying about having received a recommendation from the civil service.
The optics are the result of plain sloppiness. A little due diligence would have made a world of difference,
Image: Inc.com
6 comments:
It doesn't matter that opposition politicians were associated with the charity - they weren't doling out the contract. It doesn't matter that other programmes are sole-sourced to other charities. It doesn't matter that the charity "only" stood to gain $20 million from the contract or that the charity is reputable. What matters is that the PM and his finance minister had personal ties and direct family who were paid by this charity. That's a classic conflict of interest that requires recusal in any ethical organization. It's shocking that Trudeau and Morneau apparently didn't see the pitfall and that nobody else spoke up.
Cap
As Sophocles' Oedipus discovered, Cap, hubris makes you blind.
Perhaps I should be ashamed to reveal this, Owen, but I have a measure of fatigue with Trudeau and his scandals. There's a cumulative element to these things, as there was with Harper. Is JT a terrible prime minister? Not really. He's definitely sub-par, mediocre, but he's not some pocket-lining fiend. Canada is in urgent need of better leadership, today especially, but neither of the other parties that could perhaps form government are putting up anyone much better. There is no "top drawer" leadership on offer and so I'm just going to tune this out and leave it to those who imagine it matters.
I agree, Mound. I don't think Justin is a terrible prime minister -- as I thought Stephen Harper was. But he continues to disappoint. And that gets to be wearing.
Michael Harris discusses Trudeau's scandals in an era where ethics have come to mean almost nothing. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/07/14/Why-Trudeau-Gets-Away-With-So-Much-Stuff/
Thanks for the reference, Mound. Once again, Harris is clear-eyed and courageous in his assessment. There are ethical failures all around.
Post a Comment