Conflict of interest isn’t pols’ only ethical problem

Justin

Trudeau’s first response to critics of his public speaking fees was he had cleared the whole matter with the federal ethics commissioner.

And news reports on the controversy routinely include the fact Trudeau’s decision to continue charging $10,000-plus fees as an elected MP was vetted by Ottawa’s “ethics watchdog,” Mary Dawson.

Dawson’s full title, however, is conflict of interest and ethics commissioner.

The commissioner submits two annual reports to Parliament. One deals with the Conflict of Interest Act, the other with the Conflict of Interest Code. No talk of ethics. In Dawson’s 2012-13 reports, “ethics” turns up in just two instances: The title of her office and the proper name of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Dawson herself drew a distinction between conflict of interest and ethics when she noted her probe of Nigel Wright’s cheque to Senator Mike Duffy would be restricted to conflict of interest rules, not whether his behaviour was questionable.

Conflict of interest is fairly cut and dried: If you do one thing, could it influence decisions you make as part of some other job, duty or responsibility?

Ethics covers broader territory and is more slippery, which might be why politicians link it to conflict and move on.

Ethically, should an MP paid $157,000 by the public charge $15,000 for a speech? Is that just another transaction where one party pays what it believes is fair market value for a service by another party?

One ethics writer suggests two tests would have served Trudeau well: Might I come to regret this, and how would I feel reading about it in my local newspaper?

If Trudeau doesn’t regret charging commercial rates for speaking while serving as an MP, he should.

If he has no concern with the effect of having the story in every newspaper in the country, he’s wrong.

He has admitted as much by offering to repay any organization that asks.

The Prime Minister’s Office fails the same ethics test for attempting to surreptitiously dish dirt on Trudeau’s financial arrangements to newspapers in towns and cities where he spoke.

It’s a test all politicians should consider when they talk about being open and transparent. They might even start promising to be more ethical.