From the CBC:
“Justin Trudeau drops into
another pitfall of his own making”
Justin Trudeau and his government
have shown a remarkable ability to find trouble in novel places — a Christmas
vacation, the Shawcross doctrine and the possibility of a deferred prosecution
agreement for SNC-Lavalin, the prime minister's choice of attire during a trip
to India. And now, a national program for student volunteers. News that a
subsidiary of the WE Charity paid Trudeau's mother and brother for speaking
engagements raises further questions about the government's decision to enlist
WE to disburse the funds from that program — and the prime minister's apparent
involvement in signing off on that decision. It inflames doubts that were
already being raised about the intent behind the government's decision to
partner with WE. But it also makes one wonder why the prime minister keeps
putting himself in these situations. WE insisted at first that "the
charity" had "never paid an honorarium" to Margaret Trudeau, the
former wife of Pierre Trudeau, who is known for her advocacy on the issue of
mental health. In some cases, that statement now appears to be incorrect: the
charity did pay Margaret Trudeau for some appearances, though WE now claims
that was a paperwork error. But WE's original claim also elided over the fact
that its for-profit arm, ME to WE, had paid the prime minister's mother. For
WE, it's impossible to justify that omission. For Trudeau, the newest facts
make it much more difficult for him to explain why he went anywhere near this
decision. Trudeau insists that the recommendation to partner with WE came from
public service officials and an associate deputy minister has defended the
choice. A committee of the House of Commons has requested the internal
documentation related to the government's decision and the paper trail will now
be studied closely. But even a recommendation from a non-partisan public
servant won't be enough to entirely redeem what has happened here. Even without
the participation of Trudeau and his family members in WE events, it's now
obvious that the charity's involvement would have attracted WE's various critics
regardless. In fact, it was criticism of WE's general practices and new
complaints about how it was administering the volunteer program that compelled
the government and the charity to walk away from their arrangement last week.
A scandal in plain sight: That false start has real implications for
a program that is supposed to be creating opportunities for young people. But
the demise of the partnership was not enough to end the controversy because of
the known ties between Trudeau and WE. In addition to the appearances by
Margaret and Alexandre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau has made several appearances as
prime minister at WE events and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau hosts a podcast for WE
(she is not paid for that, though she was paid for an appearance in 2012). That
was always going to be enough to raise suspicions. The fact that Margaret and
Alexandre, also known as Sacha, were paid for their appearances now adds money
to the mix. Maybe, by some strict reading of the applicable rules, the Liberals
can argue that Trudeau's involvement in the decision to go forward with WE
didn't amount to a conflict of interest. That ultimately will be up to the
ethics commissioner to decide. But the prime minister himself could have
eliminated the possibility of any conflict — simply by stepping back and
excusing himself from any participation in the decision. As Trudeau
acknowledged earlier this week, he did not recuse himself. And now he faces the
possibility of a third reprimand by the ethics commissioner — after earlier
rulings against that vacation on the Aga Khan's private island and the
government's handling of the SNC-Lavalin case. Some may choose to believe that
there was corruption in any or all of those cases. A final verdict on the
current controversy will depend on both documentation and the testimony of
officials. But even a less-damning read of the last five years is unflattering.
Self-inflicted wounds: For whatever reason, the prime minister and
his office seem to have a recurring problem of failing to check themselves. As
a result, they have now repeatedly wrecked themselves. Perhaps believing their
motives are sound and their intentions are good — and that meaning well should
transcend all potential problems — they have waltzed into a series of avoidable
spectacles. In each case, it seems as if someone (not least the prime minister
himself) should have seen the trouble coming — that what this government lacks
is someone willing to put their hand up and ask, "Wait, are we sure about
this?" (In that respect, Trudeau's worst moments as prime minister might
have something in common with his infamous decision to wear blackface in
previous years — the lack of an internal or external voice counselling
caution.) Trudeau apologized in September 2019 after images and a video of him
in blackface and brownface became public, just weeks before the federal
election. Trudeau's life has played out at a rarified level, where your father
can be a friend of the Aga Khan and your mother and your brother can be
celebrities who get paid to speak. Someone from that world should be keenly
aware of how vulnerable he is to the charge of being out-of-touch — should know
how dangerous it is to leave the impression that the standards of mere mortals
don't apply to him. And yet, more than once, he seems to have lost track of
what is expected from a politician.
Burning through the benefit of
the doubt: Trudeau's Liberals came to
power having made many promises to do big things. They might tell themselves
now that their electoral fortunes still depend ultimately on getting those big
things right — on the economy, equality, climate change, and so on. There is
still a pandemic to battle. But ethics and judgment and character become big
things when people in public life leave room for doubt — when they can be
labelled arrogant, or entitled, or worse. It also gets much harder to do those
big things every time you turn a Christmas vacation or a student volunteer
program into a multi-chapter affair of revelation and recrimination. In the
absence of the WE controversy, the focus of political attention in Ottawa
yesterday might have been the new jobs numbers, or the testimony of grocery
store executives who recently withdrew a wage bonus for their employees. The
Liberals might only have had to worry about how they were going to manage the
economy's restart and the government's fiscal situation. Instead, the prime
minister is being asked again to account for actions that apparently weren't
accounted for very well to begin with.
^ It seems Trudeau loves to get
into these scandals because nothing really happens to him afterwards. No matter
what he does and how often he is found guilty it seems Canadians still look the
other way. It says a lot about the current state of things in both Canadian
Politics as well as with the Canadian people (and I say that as a dual
Canadian-American.) ^
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-we-charity-margaret-trudeau-alexandre-1.5645781
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.