Unethical or excusable?
Re Report finds PM broke ethics law, Aug. 15 Back in 2016, I was very disappointed with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to break his 2015 promise to replace our non-proportional firstpast-the-post voting system. I was pleased when the Liberals adopted a carbon fee and dividend to tackle climate change. I was shocked and upset when Trudeau supported a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin and tried to influence attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould.
In spite of this roller coaster of emotions, I will vote Liberal in October.
Because I don’t want a regressive Conservative government to wreak havoc on Canada.
Because I believe Shaun Chen, my local Liberal MP is a thoughtful, dedicated politician working on the standing committee on public accounts.
And because I hope we elect a minority Liberal government, supported and kept in line by NDPers, Greens and Independents. This will encourage more collaborative committees, where different perspectives will be respectfully considered.
I believe the PM showed poor judgment in supporting SNC lobbyists, essentially because of poor advice from his staff, and that hopefully he’s learned something from the process and will make better choices in his second term, including reducing the influence of his staff.
It would also be helpful if the media provided more education about how minority governments should not be feared, but have brought Canadians our most cherished programs, such as CPP and health care, improving the lives of many Canadians. Lorna Weigand, Scarborough It has always been routine for a prime minister and his cohorts to try to influence decisions of cabinet ministers, especially when jobs are at stake. Former U.S. president Harry Truman said it best: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
Justin Trudeau was correct in allowing the interests of thousands of SNC-Lavalin wage earners to take precedence over the wounded pride and delicate sensibilities of Jody Wilson-Raybould. Richard Bouchard, East York I’m pleased that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has accepted responsibility and, at the same time, disagreed with some parts of Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s report. Much of the howling from the opposition and media takes his simultaneous acceptance and disagreement as evidence of his arrogance and worse. “Where is the apology?” both demand.
But no one should apologize for a deed he does not consider to be a misdeed. Trudeau is showing courage and the kind of leadership we continue to need in these perilous times. Because the commissioner adjudged him in conflict with Parliament’s ethics rules does not mean that he stops being prime minister. The man has the continuing heavy responsibility of his job to do and I’m glad he has this in focus.
The etiquette of proper and timely apologies (to whomever) can remain the calling of others. Besides, he’s apologized enough for matters that really count. P.D. Brown, Toronto
Re Private versus public interest, Editorial, Aug. 15
Once again, the Star spins the truth in support of Justin Trudeau. The Star ignores the fact he promised transparent government and that he would fully co-operate with the ethics commissioner’s investigation (but made sure nine staff members were not allowed to testify).
His office also tried to paint Jodi Wilson-Raybould as not a team player and hard to get along with.
Trudeau has now been found guilty of two ethics violations. No prime minister in our history has ever shown such arrogance, distain and sense of entitlement.
Trudeau often says he speaks for all Canadians. He does not. He speaks for the Liberal Party, of which SNC-Lavalin is a major financial supporter. The Liberals received 39.5 per cent of the vote. Sixty per cent of Canadians did not support him. Stephen Dixon, Ennismore, Ont. Justin Trudeau’s explanation for his ethical breach in the SNC-Lavalin affair is that he wanted to save Canadian jobs. His excuse does not hold up.
Let us suppose that SNC-Lavalin was barred from bidding on government contracts and had to let workers go. The new winning bidders would need the manpower necessary for the increased workload.
This would lead them to hire laid off SNC-Lavalin workers and would give them an opportunity to grow. Diane Randall, Unionville It’s disturbing that the Star’s editors could find anything in the ethics commissioner’s report to indicate the prime minister did the right thing by trying to interfere in prosecutorial independence. Protecting the independence of our legal system and rule of law is protecting the broader public interest, not just that of a single company. Trudeau may not have had any money go directly in his pocket, but SNCLavalin was found guilty of inappropriate donations to the Liberal Party. Money the Liberals had to pay back. Also Trudeau and the PMO’s office were trying to benefit from getting a deferred prosecution agreement for their supporter by getting re-elected and keeping their jobs. Actually, seems to me that is a financial benefit to them.
Working behind the back of our attorney general is not protecting the broader public interest, it is doing the exact opposite. Roberta Gooch Peters, Toronto Your argument that the government was protecting the public interest when it chose to twist the attorney general’s arm deserves further analysis.
First, the rules forbidding conflict of interest do not provide exemptions for conflicts that impinge on the public interest. Justin Trudeau is not allowed to murder someone if doing so will save a thousand or a million jobs. For precisely the same reasons, he is not allowed to pressure his attorney general into going light on SNC-Lavalin.
Second, even if the government were permitted to allow considerations of the public interest to influence its behaviour, it would still have an obligation to consider the public interest in its broadest context. Society has a considerable interest in ensuring that criminals are brought to justice and that their cases are not seen to be rigged by friends in power. Patrick Cowan, North York Send email to lettertoed@thestar.ca; via Web at www.thestar.ca/letters. Include full name, address, phone numbers of sender; only name and city will be published. Letter writers should disclose any personal interest they have in the subject matter. We reserve the right to edit letters, which run 50-150 words.