Trudeau’s conflict: a perk too far
If Justin Trudeau had to write an essay, “How I Spent My 2017 Christmas Vacation,” it might involve a lot of apologizing for “How I Spent My 2016 Christmas Vacation.” Astonishingly, Mr. Trudeau’s 2016 leisure time involved four violations of the Conflict of Interest Act when he and his family holidayed with friends on a private Bahamian island owned by the Aga Khan.
The prime minister did offer a meek “I’m sorry” just before Christmas, when the federal ethics commissioner, Mary Dawson, issued her damning findings on his conduct in accepting two family vacations, one in March and one at Christmas, on the Aga Khan’s Bells Cay island in 2016.
In a tongue-tied press conference, Mr. Trudeau had no real explanation of the serious lapse in judgment he showed in accepting such gifts from someone — even someone he saw as a family friend — whose Aga Khan Canada Foundation had significant ongoing financial dealings with Ottawa. The best Mr. Trudeau could manage was a promise to run future holiday plans by the commissioner.
Ms. Dawson found Mr. Trudeau contravened four sections of the Conflict of Interest Act. In accepting the family vacations, he failed to prevent a conflict of interest between his private affairs and his public duties. He accepted a gift that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence him, even if that were not the intent. He violated a ban on ministers and their families using private aircraft without the commissioner’s pre-approval. He failed to recuse himself from discussions of government dealings with the Aga Khan’s Global Centre for Pluralism.
Ms. Dawson concluded, however, that Mr. Trudeau did not actually participate in any decisions related to the Aga Khan and his institutions nor give them preferential treatment. Nor did he violate the MPS’ code of conduct, since he was not involved in parliamentary votes or discussions related to the Aga Khan.
Officeholders are permitted to accept gifts from family and friends. Mr. Trudeau argued the Aga Khan, a friend of his father, fell into the second category since they became reacquainted in recent years. But while Ms. Dawson concluded there was “a warm relationship rooted in family history,” she found it “unlikely that the invitations would have been given” if the Aga Khan did not have interactions with Ottawa and if Mr. Trudeau were not “a significant player on the Canadian political scene.” The business and personal relationships were too intertwined for the gifts to meet the friend exception, or to be appropriate, she found.
Ms. Dawson says “it was foreseeable prior to both vacations” that Mr. Trudeau and the Aga Khan “would continue to have official dealings.” This “should have put Mr. Trudeau on notice that such gifts might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence him” or “otherwise give rise to a real or apparent conflict of interest.” She adds bluntly: “Neither Mr. Trudeau nor his family should have vacationed on the Aga Khan’s private island.”
No, they should not have. And it’s a worrisome failure of judgment and of leadership that Mr. Trudeau did not see this as common sense or look into the conflict law.
Celebrities may accept lavish gifts as a perk of moving in high circles, but elected heads of government cannot. Not in law. And not if they want to maintain the public’s trust.