Conflict of interest flippancy wears badly on the Sask. Party

The mark of government aging badly is an increased flippancy towards conflicts of interest.

Consider today’s attitude of the Saskatchewan Party government compared with what it articulated in its Feb. 12, 2006 Code of Ethics — a bold statement committing every Sask. Party member to “integrity, honesty, respect, responsibility, fairness and compassion in their daily lives and in their work with the party.”

Party members must be faithful “to the letter and spirit of this Code” and it warns any breach could trigger an ethics panel investigation that could conclude “with suspension or disqualification from holding any office or position within the party.”

Admittedly, oppositions can be sanctimonious. But let’s assume these guidelines calling for each member to “make every effort to ensure that their conduct is above reproach in the view of reasonable, fair-minded and informed persons” and to “avoid conduct practices likely to bring discredit upon themselves or the party” were and still are sincere.

Consider, then, how far the Sask. Party has strayed — especially in its vigorous defence of the allegations surrounding the Global Transportation Hub (GTH) now under RCMP investigation and consideration for criminal prosecution.

Even if the GTH investigation doesn’t produce charges, consider what we had already known about the GTH in the context of the Sask. Party ethics code — presumably, the true DNA of this party.

But let’s also consider this in the context of Estevan MLA Lori Carr last month calling NDP questions on a possible conflict of interest “drive-by smear tactics based on nothing but innuendo and complete lack of understanding of how government works.”

So what egregious thing set Carr off ? Well, the previous day veteran Regina MLA and former NDP cabinet minister David Forbes had the audacity to ask whether Central Services Minister Ken Cheveldayoff may have a conflict of interest as he muses over selling off any of the government’s 660 public buildings.

Cheveldayoff ’s own conflict-ofinterest disclosure shows he’s a shareholder in two commercial real estate firms and that he “took tens of thousands of dollars from commercial real estate companies” in campaign contributions during the Sask. Party leadership race, Forbes noted.

“Mr. Speaker, that is not a conflict,” railed Carr in her March 28 member’s statement. “But in the interest of transparency, here are some other ministers that may be in a conflict according to the NDP: The Minister of Agriculture owns a farm. The SaskTel minister owns a phone. The Finance minister has money. The Minister of Advanced Education went to university. And the Minister of Education went to school, albeit a long time ago. The Energy minister uses gas in her car. And here is one the NDP may not be aware of: before he was elected, the Minister of Parks, Culture and Sport actually made a living playing a sport.”

Actually, with the exception of owning a farm, none of the above need be declared on MLAs’ conflict-of-interest forms. So might a “reasonable, fair-minded and informed person” be inclined to view Forbes’s question as fair? Well, even those without vast expertise in “how government works” might think so.

The problem with Carr’s member’s statement goes beyond its childish flippancy. It speaks to a party that has lost its ethical standards and believes it is beyond reproach in the place where MLA accountability is paramount.

In fairness to Carr, such member’s statements are often scripted by caucus staff. And even if these were solely Carr’s words, she wouldn’t be the first MLA to be overzealous in defending a colleague.

Finally, it came after new Speaker Mark Docherty — bizarrely and wrongly — made Forbes apologize for even raising the question. If questions in the legislature on perceived conflicts now merit apologies, we have problems, folks.

It’s noteworthy that Docherty also chastised Carr the next day and that the Sask. Party removed Carr’s statement from its Twitter feed. But that offers little solace when a governing party has apparently forgotten its own ethics code and is now messaging that it shouldn’t even be held accountable in the legislature.