Federal ethics act a toothless embarrassment

Clams do not have a backbone.

Neither, as it turns out, does the conflict-of-interest ruling levelled against federal Liberal cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc for the dubious way he awarded a licence to harvest the lucrative Arctic surf clam off Canada’s east coast.

In a decision that should shame the federal Liberals, ethics commissioner Mario Dion declared last week that LeBlanc knew full well that his wife’s first cousin was involved in the Five Nations Clam Co. when LeBlanc gave it a multimillion-dollar licence last February.

Back then, LeBlanc was the federal fisheries minister.

But even after the federal government cancelled that licence, LeBlanc faced no meaningful consequences. He was merely shuffled to a new portfolio and currently serves as federal minister of intergovernmental affairs. Accountability be damned.

Now, despite the ethics commissioner’s scathing conflict-of-interest finding, LeBlanc won’t even have a slap on the wrist to fear.

There is no penalty for violating the federal ethics act. Not only does it lack a backbone, it is toothless. And that should change, as LeBlanc’s case proves in spades.

As a way of promoting reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous Peoples, the federal government announced last year it would give 25 per cent of the Arctic surf clam industry’s annual quota to an Indigenous company.

But it soon became clear that, fine intentions aside, there was something fishy about the government’s behaviour. And the more time that passed, the worse that fishy smell became.

It turned out that the Five Nations Clam Co., which won the rights for waters off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, was only one-quarter Indigenous-owned. And court documents show LeBlanc knew Five Nations had only two Indigenous partners.

Even more unsettling was the involvement of both the brother of a sitting Liberal MP and a former Liberal MP in the Five Nations Clam Co. bid.

But it is LeBlanc’s behaviour as fisheries minister that is most disappointing — and most unacceptable for a powerful politician.

LeBlanc downplayed his relationship to his wife’s first-cousin, Gilles Thériault, telling the ethics commissioner the two had met only 10 times over the past 15 years. But the ethics commissioner discovered LeBlanc and Thériault actually met four times before and after the announcement of the licence being awarded to Five Nations.

LeBlanc could have recused himself from awarding that contract. He did not.

He obviously knew of Thériault’s involvement in the company. And, as ethics commissioner Dion declared, Thériault could have benefitted financially from Five Nations winning the licence.

Minister LeBlanc’s behaviour was wrong. It was unethical. It was unbecoming of a cabinet minister.

He has said he accepts without reservation the commissioner’s findings. And yet he seems eager to avoid censure, pointing out that the ethics commissioner determined no preferential treatment was given and no benefit created.

LeBlanc should go further.

He should state that he recognizes his errors and publicly apologize for them.

As for the office of the ethics commissioner, it deserves a functional set of teeth from the federal government.

Strong words are not enough to condemn ethical failings. Stronger action is required.