Conflict of interest? What conflict?

POLITICIANS SHOULD ACT IN AN ETHICAL MANNER, RATHER THAN JUST FOLLOWING THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

Ethics is often a difficult concept for our political class, especially when activities fall somewhere in that grey area between unlawful and unethical.

The unlawful cases are relatively easy: if you break the rules as they are written, you pay the price. Former Quebec deputy premier Nathalie Normandeau, along with six other high- ranking members of t he Quebec Liberal party and the Parti Québécois, may soon learn that lesson, after their arrest Thursday by the province’s anti- corruption unit. A determination of wrongdoing in those cases will depend, in part, on a close reading of the province’s campaign financing rules, to assess whether any were breached.

But many other cases are not so straightforward, particularly those where laws are violated in spirit, but perhaps not in fact. Take Canada’s Conflict of Interest Act, which, among other things, places stringent limitations on outside employment while in office and requires those holding public office to place assets in blind trusts. This is obviously a good thing. But it is very peculiar that the act only forbids actual conflicts of interest and not also the appearance of a conflict, which can be just as damaging to the public’s trust, and imposes trivial penalties for violations. In any case, its milquetoast provisions seem to satisfy the political class, since calls to strengthen it have dependably fallen on deaf ears.

As a piece in this newspaper pointed out Wednesday, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould is married to someone who is registered to lobby her department. No problem, they say: they’ll put up a “conflicts screen.” Beyond that, Wilson- Raybould will be making policy on a project against which she personally protested — British Columbia’s Site C dam — before becoming an MP. That’s OK, though: there’s nothing against it in the fine print.

Nor is there for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s recent $6,000 a head private dinner, which offered attendees one- on- one access to the premier and her energy minister. Co- sponsored by a lobby group, the whole spectacle might have looked rather fishy but, you see, it was perfectly above board because it didn’t take place on public property, where people might have seen it.

Then there’s the Alberta government, which blithely appointed the former No. 2 negotiator for the Alberta Union of Public Employees, Kevin Davidiuk, to advise it on public- sector negotiations, which was peachy because he stepped down from AUPE a full day before receiving the new appointment.

When questioned on the nomination, Alberta Finance Minister Joe Ceci breezily assured the press, “There’s no real conflict. There’s a perception of conflict.” And that’s just fine.

Albertans can be forgiven for wondering what will happen to Davidiuk, if and when he gets the province’s public unions a good deal. Will they look after him once his time in government is done? If he squeezes them hard, is he going to find doors slammed in his face? Even if those who hold public office somehow avoid getting into direct conflicts of interest, it is hard to believe those dealing with them will not question whether something is going on behind the scenes.

That’s why the behaviour of those who hold public office must not simply be lawful, or ethical according to written standards, but also perceived to be ethical by the people they represent. We do not blame all for the lapses of the few. But it is remarkable that the general standard of honesty in rhetoric and transparency in dealings seems to fall strangely short of what would be acceptable outside government. We would hope that the base standard for acceptable political activity would not simply be whether it heeds to the fine print. If these politicians can’t appear before us with conspicuously clean noses, they should at least wipe the smirk off their faces.