Hiding Steinley’s past DUI is unacceptable

In this day and age of modern campaigning, when it seems the public is demanding full disclosure on most matters, full and unqualified disclosure on criminal conviction matters is the absolute minimum that candidates should provide.

It’s not asking too much. This isn’t unfairly prying into personal affairs where there’s no element of criminality and a high likelihood of a political rival viciously spinning an unfortunate family, business or personal situation into something it’s not.

Nor is it even equivalent to other matters we have seen forcibly disclosed during this federal election campaign that have arguably less consequences — the hypocritical boneheadery of wearing blackface/brownface, or the perceived embellishment of a thin work resume.

This isn’t about gossipy bad behaviour or past questionable choices making it into public/political discourse that may discourage viable candidates from seeking public office. We are talking about a breach of the Criminal Code. We have a right to ask, and it’s something we do ask of others in many job interviews.

In fact, many of you who have been through job interviews have likely already been asked — as your potential employer had every right to do — whether you have ever had a criminal conviction. If you crossed the U.S. border, you may have been asked if you have ever been charged with a criminal office, regardless of conviction.

There may be consequences in an honest, affirmative answer.

But the consequences of a dishonest or deceptive answer are far more severe.

Those running for office are, essentially, undergoing a job interview. So shouldn’t we ask our job applicants if they’ve failed the laws they want to now pass?

We aren’t talking about laws no longer active. Have you noticed there’s been remarkably little chatter about past marijuana possession convictions or even the once-obligatory have-youever-smoked pot question? Why? Because we elect politicians to uphold laws and sometimes reassess laws no longer deemed fit.

However, a drunk driving conviction today is now actually considered far more serious than it was a couple of decades ago. What was once sadly thought of as a bit of a lark with small fines is now seen as a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada in which courts impose far stiffer fines, punishments and jail sentences. In this province, we have even instituted laws directing seizure of vehicles at a lower blood alcohol content than .08.

So for any individual candidate/elected official or political party to not disclose past DUIS is simply deceitful.

Therein lies the problem for Regina-lewvan candidate Warren Steinley, the Conservative party he now is representing and especially the Saskatchewan Party that he served for the last eight years.

It isn’t that we shouldn’t have sympathy for Steinley, who explained Thursday his 2001 DUI as a 19-year-old was the act of a still-immature kid. We get that this happened almost two decades ago, and that the husband and father of three he is today — a guy who “lives and exemplifies family values,” according to campaign literature — isn’t that guy of two decades ago. And had he simply been forthright about his past, this issue would have been done with. Voters are forgiving.

That proved to be the case for the late former Sask. Party MLA Serge Leclerc, who was boldly upfront about a lengthy criminal past before his 2007 election. And it was certainly the case for other Sask. Party MLAS — including Premier Scott Moe — who fessed up about past DUIS. Asked by the media in 2016 when this came up as an issue related to NDP candidates, these Sask. Party candidates demonstrated integrity by disclosing their records. All were elected.

That the Sask. Party and/ or Steinley chose not to be forthright about his DUI because he received a pardon is a meaningless disservice to voters, and inherently unfair to the caucus colleagues who simply opted to be honest.

Yes, the DUI was when Steinley was a kid before he entered politics.

But not revealing his DUI until this week when asked by the media is unacceptable.

Mandryk is political columnist the Regina Leader-post.