Real question is why Stefanson and ministers put reputations on line for Sio Silica
As remarkable as ethics commissioner Jeffrey Schnoor's report into the Sio Silica scandal is — and remarkable is a good word for it — it was unable to answer a fundamental question.
Why would a former premier and two senior former cabinet ministers put their personal and professional reputations at risk to issue a licence for a questionable silica mining proposal in the days after they were defeated in the 2023 election?
The fact that Schnoor could not fully explain 'why' is not a criticism of his report.
MIKAELA MACKENZIE / FREE PRESS FILES
Former Manitoba premier Heather Stefanson, left, with former finance minister Cliff Cullen, were found guilty of breaching ethics law by ethics commissioner Jeffrey Schnoor's report into the Sio Silica scandal.
MIKAELA MACKENZIE / FREE PRESS FILES
Former Manitoba premier Heather Stefanson, left, with former finance minister Cliff Cullen, were found guilty of breaching ethics law by ethics commissioner Jeffrey Schnoor's report into the Sio Silica scandal.
History shows that politicians caught engaging in ethical transgressions rarely face anything stiffer than a good tongue-lashing. In finding former premier Heather Stefanson, former deputy premier Cliff Cullen and former economic development minister Jeff Wharton guilty of breaching ethics law — and recommending fines for each politician — Schnoor has flipped that script in dramatic fashion.
In the days following the October 2023 election, Schnoor found that Stefanson, Cullen and Wharton went to extraordinary lengths to issue an environmental licence to Sio Silica, an Alberta-based company that wanted to mine silica sand in Vivian, just east of Winnipeg. The project involved unproven technology, and had triggered significant concern among environmental lobbies and area residents.
These efforts took place during the so-called 'caretaker' period, in which an outgoing government is prohibited from making any government decision before a new government takes over. Schnoor was resolute that Stefanson, Cullen and Wharton made a variety of attempts to ram through a licence during the caretaker period.
The report detailed how, working together and apart, the Tory trio tried to bully two other cabinet ministers into issuing a licence. They also tried to influence bureaucrats into licensing the mine without a ministerial directive.
All of these efforts were unsuccessful as a licence was not issued and the new government headed by Premier Wab Kinew quickly declared that he would say 'no to Sio.'
Stefanson argued in her submissions to Schnoor that because no licence was issued during the caretaker period, there was no breach of ethics law. Schnoor's report says the breach was committed in the effort to issue a licence in the days following the election loss.
'The caretaker convention stands at the very core of our democracy,' Schnoor wrote in a release accompanying his report.
'The legitimacy of a government depends on the support of the electorate, expressed in elections. A government that loses an election has lost the confidence of the people and has lost the legitimacy to do anything beyond maintaining the status quo until the new government can take office. The exercise of power by an outgoing government to make significant decisions except in the most exceptional circumstances is a serious affront to our democratic institutions and to voters.'
The price for this affront to democracy may seem, at first blush, to be insignificant. The ethics commissioner recommended Stefanson be fined $18,000 for her role. Cullen faces a $12,000 fine and Wharton, the only one of the three who still has a seat in the Manitoba legislature, faces at $10,000 fine.
RUTH BONNEVILLE / FREE PRESS FILES
Former Manitoba premier Heather Stefanson, left, and former economic development minister Jeff Wharton, pictured in 2022.
RUTH BONNEVILLE / FREE PRESS FILES
Former Manitoba premier Heather Stefanson, left, and former economic development minister Jeff Wharton, pictured in 2022.
Stefanson was fined the most because she was the head of the PC government at the time and thus, 'has a higher leadership responsibility that she failed to meet,' Schnoor wrote.
Wharton, on the other hand, got the smallest fine in part because he was the only one of the Tory trio who offered to apologize for his role in this scandal.
All of which brings us back to the pressing question of 'why' these three veteran politicians would engage in such clearly unethical behaviour.
Schnoor made it clear he did not find evidence that any of the three Tories acted for personal benefit. If there was no effort to line their own pockets, then what?
One might imagine that this was just a simple matter of them trying to help political friends in the private sector. When you dig into Sio Silica's network, you quickly find it has a strong Tory flavour.
Tuesdays
A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.
The Tory trio said they continued to pursue a licence because they believed the project had enormous economic value and that it could become a major part of the PC party's economic legacy from the seven years it was in government.
Not one of those explanations comes even remotely close to addressing why they did what they did. Unfortunately, now that Schnoor's work is done, it appears we may never know the real motivations at work.
The bigger concern for the current iteration of the PC party is that this scandal may evolve into a millstone with some staying power.
Consider that the fines recommended by Schnoor have to be confirmed by a vote in the legislature. That means new Tory Leader Obby Khan and his 19 MLAs will have to vote for the fines — and thereby acknowledge that what the trio did was wrong — or vote against and suffer endless taunts by the Kinew government.
It appears one way or the other, Sio Silica will be a political gift for the NDP that will keep on giving for years to come.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
Dan LettColumnist
Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986. Read more about Dan.
Dan's columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press' editing team reviews Dan's columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.
Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber.
Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
an hour ago
- Global News
UN top court's decision on climate change could impact global response
The UN's highest court is handing down a historic opinion on climate change Wednesday, a decision that could set a legal benchmark for action around the globe to the climate crisis. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the U.N. General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice in 2023 for an advisory opinion, a non-binding but important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions. First, what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. Story continues below advertisement In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimetres (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. 9:12 Why Canada's forests are more vulnerable to wildfires than ever 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Any decision by The Hague-based court would be non-binding advice and unable to directly force wealthy nations into action to help struggling countries. Yet it would be more than just a powerful symbol, since it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits. Story continues below advertisement 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets — it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision and states could return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account. And whatever the judges say will be used as the basis for other legal instruments, like investment agreements, Chowdhury said. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
Global News
2 hours ago
- Global News
‘Freedom Convoy' organizers Tamara Lich, Chris Barber face sentencing
The sentencing hearing for 'Freedom Convoy' leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber is set to begin Wednesday morning, months after the two were found guilty of mischief. Two days have been set aside for the parties to present their sentencing submissions. The Crown is seeking a prison sentence of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber, who was also convicted of counselling others to disobey a court order. Lich and Barber were key figures behind the convoy protest that occupied downtown Ottawa for three weeks beginning in late January 2022 to protest vaccine mandates and other pandemic measures. The protest ended after the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time ever. The convoy was cleared out of Ottawa's downtown core in a three-day police operation that began on Feb. 18. Story continues below advertisement Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey said she found Lich and Barber guilty of mischief because they routinely encouraged people to join or remain at the protest, despite knowing the adverse effects it was having on downtown residents and businesses. Barber also was found guilty of counselling others to disobey a court order for telling people to ignore a judge's injunction directing convoy participants to stop honking their truck horns. Lich was not charged with that offence. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy In a separate Ottawa-based trial for Pat King, another convoy leader, the Crown sought a sentence of 10 years in prison for mischief and disobeying a court order. King was sentenced in February to three months of house arrest, 100 hours of community service at a food bank or men's shelter and a year of probation. He received nine months credit for time served before his conviction. 1:40 'Freedom Convoy' organizer Pat King sentenced to 3 months of house arrest Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the Crown's sentencing proposals for Lich and Barber. In a social media post Monday, Poilievre compared the sentencing range to sentences for other crimes and asked, 'How is this justice?' Story continues below advertisement While it's quite rare for elected officials to comment directly on a sentencing hearing, Poilievre's message was echoed by several other Conservative MPs. Deputy Conservative leader Melissa Lantsman called the Crown's proposed sentence 'political vengeance not actual justice.' Some Conservatives, including Poilievre, were openly supportive of the 'Freedom Convoy' as trucks and other vehicles clogged roads around Parliament Hill. Both Lich and Barber thanked Poilievre for his support in separate social media posts. 'There is a fine line between politics and the judiciary, as there should be, and I have long understood the uncomfortable position elected officials find themselves in when it comes to commenting on cases that are before the court,' Lich said on X Tuesday. 'In our case, the double standard and the vindictive nature from the prosecution office has become too obvious to ignore and will set a precedent going forward that will affect all Canadians who choose to peacefully protest or deter them from exercising their Charter Right to peacefully assemble.' 'Thank you, Pierre, we've been waiting so long for elected officials to speak up,' Barber wrote in his own post. Poilievre lost his Ottawa-area seat in the April election and is running in an Alberta byelection. Story continues below advertisement Both Lich and Barber were found not guilty on charges of intimidation, counselling to commit intimidation, obstructing police and counselling others to obstruct police. Justice Perkins-McVey said intimidation carries a sense of menace or violence. She said that both Lich and Barber repeatedly called for protesters to remain peaceful throughout the protest. As for obstructing police, Perkins-McVey said both were arrested without incident and were in custody before the main police operation began to clear downtown Ottawa. Charges for counselling others to commit mischief were stayed at the request of the Crown.
CBC
4 hours ago
- CBC
Inclusive rite of passage + India's court backlog
The National is invited to an Indigenous-led camp in Alberta, working to inspire a renewal of rite of passage ceremonies by making them more inclusive. Plus, what's behind India's massive court backlog.
