Trudeau Face Consequences.

[Merry]

Another earlier news item:

Provisions which allow for a $500 fine for violations of the act do not apply to the sections in question. That means the maximum penalty Trudeau could face is a "notice of violation,"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ethics- ... -1.3937269

Which is disgraceful.

Rules that have no "teeth" are equivalent to not having any rules at all.

Clearly law surrounding conflict of interest and parliamentary ethics need to be examined and revised, because a "slap on the wrist" is NOT an adequate response to a Government Minister accepting expensive gifts from a foreign official who is lobbying our Government for something, particularly when that something is taxpayers money.

[jimmy4321]

I agree, unfortunately every PM has benefited from these lax rules

[westbankkid]

Throw the BAS*ARD in jail.He's the 2nd worst Prime Minister Canada has ever had. His Father was the worst. I guess it runs in the family.

[Merry]

Here are a few quotes from the actual report of the ethics commissioner (my bold)

This report presents the findings of my inquiry under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons
(Members’ Code) and my examination under the Conflict of Interest Act (Act) of the conduct of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in relation to vacations on Bells Cay, a private island in the Bahamas owned by the Aga Khan.

I found that Mr. Trudeau contravened sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Act,

Mr. Trudeau and his family, accompanied by several friends and their families, vacationed on Bells Cay from December 26, 2016 to January 4, 2017. Previously, Mr. Trudeau had also accepted a vacation on the island for himself , his family and other relatives in December 2014, and members of his family and their guests had accepted one in March 2016.

The Aga Khan is the founder and chair of the board of directors of the Aga Khan Development Net work, the Aga Khan Foundation Canada (Foundation) and the Global Centre for Pluralism. He has a long -standing relationship with the Government of Canada, which since 1981 has contributed nearly $330 million to projects supported by the Foundation.

I found that Mr. Trudeau, as Prime Minister, contravened section 11 of the Act when he or his family accepted the gifts of hospitality from the Aga Khan and the use of his private island in March and December 2016.

Because there was ongoing official business between the Government of Canada and the Aga Khan at the time each invitation was accepted, Mr. Trudeau , as Prime Minister, was in a position to be able to advance some of the matters of interest to the Aga Khan. As well, the Foundation was registered to lobby the Office of the Prime Minister at that time. For these reasons, I determined that the vacations accepted by Mr. Trudeau or his family might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence Mr. Trudeau.

I found that the exception provided in paragraph 11(2) (b) of the Act for gifts from relatives and friends did not apply in this case. Mr. Trudeau’s relationship with the Aga Khan was based on a family connection rooted in a friendship between the Aga
Khan and Mr. Trudeau’s father thirty years earlier. However, there were no private interactions between Mr. Trudeau and the Aga Khan until Mr. Trudeau became Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. This led me to conclude that their relationship cannot be described as one of friends for the purposes of the Act.

I found that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 21 of the Act when he did not recuse himself from discussions that provided an opportunity to improperly further the private interest associated with one of the institutions of the Aga Khan and that he contravened section 5 for failing to arrange his private affairs to avoid such an opportunity.

Section 5 sets out a broad general obligation for public office holders and differs in that way from the more specific prohibitions that follow that section. It requires that public office holders must arrange their private affairs so that they have no current and, to their knowledge, no foreseeable conflict of interest in the future.

The decisions to vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island were made in the context of Mr. Trudeau’s private affairs.

Mr. Trudeau must ensure that he has arranged his private affairs so that they are not incompatible with his public duties as Prime Minister of Canada.
By deciding that he or his family should vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island in March 2016 and December 2016, when it was foreseeable prior to both vacations that he and the Aga Khan would continue to have official dealings, Mr. Trudeau failed to arrange his private affairs in a manner that would prevent him from being placed in a conflict of interest. Neither
Mr. Trudeau nor his family should have vacationed on the Aga Khan’s private island.

I found that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 12 of the Act when his family travelled on non-commercial aircraft chartered by the Aga Khan in March 2016 and when he and his family travelled in the Aga Khan’s private helicopter in December 2016. The travel was not required in Mr. Trudeau’s official capacity as a public office holder and he did not seek my prior approval. Furthermore, I found that the circumstances were not exceptional for Mr. Trudeau in this case.

Mr. Trudeau told me that, prior to becoming Prime Minister, he had not sought to further develop a peer -to-peer relationship with the Aga Khan like the one his father had. He also said that he felt that, once he had become Prime Minister, he could now pursue a friendship with the Aga Khan. This is understandable in light of the previous family connection and the fact that they share common ideals and goals. However, while in public office, Mr. Trudeau must unfortunately put on hold his pursuit of friendships with individuals with whom he is likely to have official dealings. His obligations as a public office holder require that he do so.

http://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/Documents/E ... Report.pdf

[Merry]

These quotes are from an article that was written back in March 2016, but much of what that article contains is still relevant today (my bold).

In politics, questions of ethics cannot be left to the judgment of individual politicians. Clear rules are essential for establishing the standards public officials must meet, and the consequences for failing to do so.

Fortunately, the Conflict of Interest Act — Canada’s key ethics legislation for federal office holders — includes rules that govern conflicts of interest, and does not leave it to impugned individuals to judge whether their conduct is permissible or not. The conflict of interest and ethics commissioner provides expert advice on precisely such matters. Unfortunately, the standard for what constitutes a conflict of interest under the act is far too lax and the penalties that can be imposed for violating the act’s rules are far too inconsequential and uncertain.

As the Canadian Bar Association, Democracy Watch and the ethics commissioner have pointed out, the act does not allow for meaningful penalties to be imposed on officials that break the rules — the maximum penalty that can be levied is a paltry $500.

The ethics commissioner, an independent officer of Parliament, should be empowered to impose a range of monetary penalties for violating any of the act’s provisions, and the maximum penalty need not be capped. Rather, the penalty could go as high as any improper benefits received, or profits earned, from an official’s abuse of office.

More than that, the commissioner or a tribunal should be authorized to impose other penalties — such as ordering a dismissal or requiring a public apology — for more substantive breaches. Currently, this responsibility rests with the prime minister who, as head of the executive branch, is ultimately responsible for the actions of all its members. Yet since prime ministers are responsible for appointing public officials, they also have an incentive to sweep scandals under the rug.

For example, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s investigation into former chief of staff Nigel Wright’s $90,000 payment to Senator Michael Duffy may well have led to findings that Wright violated the act (the investigation was suspended when a RCMP criminal investigation began). But one can question whether then-prime minister Stephen Harper would have done anything about it, not least because his complicity in the wrongdoing was a live question.

Making the commissioner or a tribunal responsible for determining more serious penalties would help ensure that punishment is consistently and fairly meted out, not dependant on the whims of the prime minister.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/lauren- ... erest-laws

[Gone_Fishin]

He should resign immediately. Never in the history of Canada has an incumbent prime minister been found guilty of accepting influence bribes, until this part time drama teacher decided to line his pockets. Disgusting.

[bob vernon]

Lock him up, lock him up!

[Merry]

He should resign immediately. Never in the history of Canada has an incumbent prime minister been found guilty of accepting influence bribes.

On this I agree. However, there's been no suggestion that Trudeau did it to "line his own pockets". I suspect it was more a case of wanting to "mix with the rich and famous" that he was guilty of. There have been many instances since Justin became PM that he's been observed mixing with the international "jet set", and it's usually been on our dime.

But the fact remains that, whatever the reason behind the behaviour, Government Ministers accepting expensive gifts from folks who have professional dealings with the Government is both inappropriate and illegal. And there ought to be severe consequences for such behaviour.

Our current law only allows for a maximum fine of $500 per occurrence, and few are rarely, if ever, fined the maximum. And, to make matters worse, if the CBC article is correct, the parts of the law that Trudeau broke aren't even subject to the paltry fine. Why on earth not? Why is one part of the law a fine-able offense, but not the other part? It doesn't make any sense.

Fines are intended to encourage compliance with the law. So why pass a law that has sections with no penalties for non-compliance? Such a law is not worth the paper it is written on, and needs to be revised.

[Ka-El]

He should resign immediately.

Ya, cause here in Canada, and especially here in BC, we never tolerate any sort of impropriety or malfeasance from our elected officials and have always insisted on full and immediate accountability no matter what party. Oh ya, wait. Disgusting.

[Merry]

He should resign immediately.

Ya, cause here in Canada, and especially here in BC, we never tolerate any sort of impropriety or malfeasance from our elected officials and have always insisted on full and immediate accountability no matter what party. Oh ya, wait. Disgusting.

Two wrongs don't make a right Ka-El.

This is EXACTLY why we need a law with teeth; to make sure that ALL violaters are punished, not just those from the "wrong" political party.

[Fancy]

He should resign immediately. Never in the history of Canada has an incumbent prime minister been found guilty of accepting influence bribes, until this part time drama teacher decided to line his pockets. Disgusting.

Where did you read he accepted bribes considering this:

there is no evidence Trudeau actually advanced the private interest of the Aga Khan or any institution he controls

[Glacier]

He shouldn't resign, but he should pay back tax payer's $200,000 at a minimum.

Even Liberal partisans are saying a simple apology isn't enough: http://warrenkinsella.com/2017/12/trude ... ics-rules/

[Rwede]

He should resign immediately. Never in the history of Canada has an incumbent prime minister been found guilty of accepting influence bribes, until this part time drama teacher decided to line his pockets. Disgusting.

Where did you read he accepted bribes considering this:

there is no evidence Trudeau actually advanced the private interest of the Aga Khan or any institution he controls

He gave Aga $15 million. He gets a fancy vacation in return. Errr, ya, uh-huh.

Fish is right. Trudeau should resign immediately. He's unfit for the office he holds.

[Ka-El]

*removed*

[Rwede]

I don't know how many of you can spot a blatant liar when you see one, but I think most will draw the right conclusion:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1120813635786/

Wowsers.