Whatever happened to old-fashioned integrity?
We once lived in simpler times when matters of controversy like the ones the Saskatchewan Party government now faces were avoided by rules roughly based on good, old-fashioned integrity.
Yes, even in the world of politics where integrity has never exactly been in overabundance, there were always some unwritten rules. It's funny how time in government clouds one's view of those rules and where lines of integrity are drawn.
The latest example comes from Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre, who — after replacing the previous Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) that saw resignations over the pronoun bill — is now defending her government's appointment of potential Saskatchewan Party candidate for Saskatoon Southeast, Mubarik Syed.
The problem isn't Syed wanting to be an MLA. How will the Human Rights Commission be viewed if he doesn't win the Sask. Party nomination or seat and returns?
How is the SHRC now viewed even if he doesn't return? In what world is it OK for a known, active partisan to be part of the independent, quasi-judicial body?
Judges who may have once been politically active absolutely refrain from so much as a political conversation once they don their black robes. Shouldn't the same apply to those appointed to quasi-judicial bodies?
According to a story by the Leader-post's Alec Salloum, Syed began considering a run for the Sask. Party in November before his January appointment (which raises a separate question about the ethics of government giving one of its candidates a prestigious appointment as he embarks on a political run).
“This process was started a long time ago," Syed said.
“The timing is such that it's been just announced now and that is not something that I can — this is not my decision, obviously.”
No, obviously, it was completely his decision to accept the Human Rights Commission appointment. Obviously, he had complete control over that decision. But, more to the point, obviously, cabinet made the appointment.
Credit Syed for wanting to serve as a means of “expressing gratitude for how the country and province” has welcomed him. Diversity is welcomed in the Sask. Party caucus.
But it's nonsense to suggest there is no potential conflict because, as Syed explained, “there is no material gains” for him.
This is nothing but a potential conflict and one that, unfortunately, will linger with this new commission suffering from a lack of public confidence since Eyre made wholesale new appointments last month.
Really, the problem is neither he nor Eyre can see this as a problem.
In fact, it's far more troubling than the less consequential concerns over commissioners or their companies making a donation to the Sask. Party by buying a plate for the premier's dinner party fundraiser or even a more direct contribution.
For Eyre to say “partisan affiliation simply didn't come into consideration” is rather unbelievable — especially coming from a justice minister. (Though, that she seems OK with the private lawyers she hired raising accusations of “judicial activism,” one supposes the sky may now be the limit.)
Ask yourself, would she say the same thing if the situation was reversed under an NDP government? Would the Sask. Party opposition of the past be OK with this? Would any Opposition?
For Eyre to then say it's “unfortunate to suggest” anyone who throws their hat in the ring will no longer be able to serve on commissions or boards is simply gaslighting.
Coming from a political party that does its utmost to dissuade opposing candidates from running by going over their every social media post in hopes of finding a nugget of embarrassment, this is more than a tad hypocritical.
But, again, no one is even saying Syed can't run. What they are saying is he can't run and be a human rights commissioner ruling on government decisions.
It's a matter of integrity — which used to mean something.