{"id":12986,"date":"2021-05-14T08:45:32","date_gmt":"2021-05-14T12:45:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/?p=12986"},"modified":"2025-05-25T07:16:04","modified_gmt":"2025-05-25T11:16:04","slug":"democracy-watch-will-challenge-ethics-commissioners-ruling-that-ignored-pm-trudeaus-clear-violation-in-we-charity-grant-approval","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/democracy-watch-will-challenge-ethics-commissioners-ruling-that-ignored-pm-trudeaus-clear-violation-in-we-charity-grant-approval\/","title":{"rendered":"Democracy Watch will challenge Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that ignored PM Trudeau\u2019s clear violation in WE Charity grant approvalDemocracy Watch will challenge Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that ignored PM Trudeau\u2019s clear violation in WE Charity grant approval"},"content":{"rendered":"

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that Commissioner found Trudeau had<\/span><\/h4>\n\n

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:<\/b>
Friday, May 14, 2021<\/p>\n\n

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it will challenge Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s ruling<\/a> on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.<\/p>\n\n

The Ethics Commissioner concluded that, because PM Trudeau\u2019s spouse volunteers as an ambassador<\/a> and champion for WE Charity, including hosting a podcast<\/a> for it, and his mother and brother have been paid large sums<\/a> to give speeches for the charity, and the PM has also appeared at several WE events, there was \u201c<\/em>a strong appearance of conflict between the Trudeau family\u2019s relationship with WE and Mr. Trudeau\u2019s duty to make decisions that best serve the public interest.\u201d<\/em> (paragraphs 248-250).<\/p>\n\n

However, the Ethics Commissioner\u2019s ruling first claims, wrongly, that Trudeau was not in a real or potential conflict of interest. Democracy Watch\u2019s position is that, because of the extensive, direct and ongoing family ties between the Trudeau family and WE, especially the fact that his spouse is a WE ambassador and podcaster, the PM was clearly in a potential conflict of interest when WE Charity began engaging with the government about the grant, and then in a real conflict of interest as soon as WE Charity engaged with Cabinet and the PMO.<\/p>\n\n

In the <\/span>Trudeau II Report<\/a><\/em> about the SNC-Lavalin scandal involving the Prime Minister and other top government officials, Commissioner Dion defined “private interests” as including “financial, social or political interests (paragraphs 288 to 292). In his ruling on the WE Charity grant, he concluded that the grant definitely benefited WE’s private interests but ignored the fact that the grant would very likely, by helping WE financially and deepening the relationship between WE and the PM’s government and family, also benefit the social interests of his WE-ambassador spouse and his family members who spoke at WE events, and the PM’s political interests as <\/span>WE continues to promote the PM as it has for more than a decade<\/a> (paragraphs 233-238 and 243-244).<\/span><\/p>\n\n

Secondly, the Ethics Commissioner\u2019s ruling claims, wrongly, that being in an appearance of a conflict of interest is not a violation of the federal Conflict of Interest Act<\/em> (CofI Act<\/em>), and that only being in a real or potential conflict of interest is (paragraphs 252-268).<\/p>\n\n

This part of the ruling is wrong because the purpose of the CofI Act<\/em> is to prevent all \u201cconflicts of interest\u201d whether real, apparent or potential (subsections 3(b) and (c)<\/a>), and the Act<\/em> prohibits federal politicians and government officials from participating in specific decisions like handing out grants and contracts when they are “in a conflict of interest” (sections 4 and 6<\/a>) which includes any type of conflict of interest, real, apparent or potential (as the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously<\/a> in 2009 (para. 49)).<\/p>\n\n

Thirdly, the <\/span>CofI Act<\/em> prohibits politicians furthering not only their own interests but also “those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person\u2019s private interests” (<\/span>sections 4 and 6<\/a>). As mentioned above, the WE Charity grant could benefit Trudeau and his relatives’ interests. In addition, the Ethics Commissioner ignored evidence that Trudeau and his spouse are friends of the Kielburger brothers who head up WE. Craig Keilburger described Trudeau as a friend in a <\/span>November 2015 interview<\/a> with the <\/span>Ottawa Citizen<\/em>, and at the same time <\/span>at the WE event where he gave his first speech as Prime Minister<\/a>, Trudeau describe both Craig and his brother Marc as friends. Given this, and that the ties between the families have only increased since then, again including that Trudeau’s spouse is a WE Ambassador, the Ethics Commissioner was wrong to conclude that that they are not friends (paragraphs 239-241 of his ruling).<\/span><\/p>\n\n

Fourthly, Commissioner Dion\u2019s ruling ignores the real meaning of the second part of section 4 of the Act<\/em> that prohibits taking part in a decision if it offers an opportunity to \u201cimproperly further\u201d another person\u2019s or entity\u2019s interests. That is a very broad prohibition, as the Commissioner himself concluded in the Trudeau II Report<\/em><\/a> on the SNC-Lavalin scandal (paragraphs 286 and 296-301). According to the Commissioner, \u201cimproper\u201d includes a violation of any of the PM\u2019s Code<\/a> rules, and that Code\u2019s Annex B<\/a> rule prohibits the PM and ministers from being in an appearance of conflict of interest.<\/p>\n\n

Trudeau has said he should have recused himself<\/a>, and Ethics Commissioner Dion says at the end of his ruling that \u201cit is always advisable to recuse oneself and inform the Commissioner promptly when facing an apparent conflict of interest\u201d<\/i> (paragraph 269). Why? Because it is clearly improper to take part in a decision when in an apparent conflict.<\/p>\n\n

\u201cCommissioner Dion contradicts himself, ties himself into knots, and cuts the federal ethics law into pieces in his ruling letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he clearly violated the law,\u201d<\/em> said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.<\/p>\n\n

Just like Commissioner Dion\u2019s ruling on the SNC-Lavalin scandal situation, which Democracy Watch is challenging in court<\/a> because he let off former Finance Minister Bill Morneau and several other PMO and Cabinet officials who violated the CofI Act<\/i> in the same way Trudeau did, he has again failed to interpret and apply the law to prevent conflicts of interest and hold everyone accountable for violations.<\/p>\n\n

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has rolled over like a lapdog and again failed to properly enforce the federal law that prohibits conflicts of interest by letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he took part in the WE Charity grant approval process when he had a conflict of interest,”<\/em> said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch will challenge the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling in court because it sets a very bad precedent that will allow politicians and government officials to take part in future decisions to hand out money to individuals and organizations that have close relations with their families.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Democracy Watch\u2019s court case will also challenge Commissioner Dion\u2019s ruling because he was biased as he was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process<\/a>, and he had a record of 8 unethical and questionable actions<\/a> when he was Integrity Commissioner, and his senior lawyer is a Trudeau Cabinet minister\u2019s sister-in-law<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

– 30 –<\/p>\n

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:<\/strong>
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca<\/a><\/p>\n

Democracy Watch\u2019s and Government Ethics Campaign<\/a> and Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign<\/a><\/p>\n\n

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that Commissioner found Trudeau had<\/span><\/h4>\n\n

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:<\/b>
Friday, May 14, 2021<\/p>\n\n

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it will challenge Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s ruling<\/a> on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.<\/p>\n\n

The Ethics Commissioner concluded that, because PM Trudeau\u2019s spouse volunteers as an ambassador<\/a> and champion for WE Charity, including hosting a podcast<\/a> for it, and his mother and brother have been paid large sums<\/a> to give speeches for the charity, and the PM has also appeared at several WE events, there was \u201c<\/em>a strong appearance of conflict between the Trudeau family\u2019s relationship with WE and Mr. Trudeau\u2019s duty to make decisions that best serve the public interest.\u201d<\/em> (paragraphs 248-250).<\/p>\n\n

However, the Ethics Commissioner\u2019s ruling first claims, wrongly, that Trudeau was not in a real or potential conflict of interest. Democracy Watch\u2019s position is that, because of the extensive, direct and ongoing family ties between the Trudeau family and WE, especially the fact that his spouse is a WE ambassador and podcaster, the PM was clearly in a potential conflict of interest when WE Charity began engaging with the government about the grant, and then in a real conflict of interest as soon as WE Charity engaged with Cabinet and the PMO.<\/p>\n\n

In the <\/span>Trudeau II Report<\/a><\/em> about the SNC-Lavalin scandal involving the Prime Minister and other top government officials, Commissioner Dion defined “private interests” as including “financial, social or political interests (paragraphs 288 to 292). In his ruling on the WE Charity grant, he concluded that the grant definitely benefited WE’s private interests but ignored the fact that the grant would very likely, by helping WE financially and deepening the relationship between WE and the PM’s government and family, also benefit the social interests of his WE-ambassador spouse and his family members who spoke at WE events, and the PM’s political interests as <\/span>WE continues to promote the PM as it has for more than a decade<\/a> (paragraphs 233-238 and 243-244).<\/span><\/p>\n\n

Secondly, the Ethics Commissioner\u2019s ruling claims, wrongly, that being in an appearance of a conflict of interest is not a violation of the federal Conflict of Interest Act<\/em> (CofI Act<\/em>), and that only being in a real or potential conflict of interest is (paragraphs 252-268).<\/p>\n\n

This part of the ruling is wrong because the purpose of the CofI Act<\/em> is to prevent all \u201cconflicts of interest\u201d whether real, apparent or potential (subsections 3(b) and (c)<\/a>), and the Act<\/em> prohibits federal politicians and government officials from participating in specific decisions like handing out grants and contracts when they are “in a conflict of interest” (sections 4 and 6<\/a>) which includes any type of conflict of interest, real, apparent or potential (as the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously<\/a> in 2009 (para. 49)).<\/p>\n\n

Thirdly, the <\/span>CofI Act<\/em> prohibits politicians furthering not only their own interests but also “those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person\u2019s private interests” (<\/span>sections 4 and 6<\/a>). As mentioned above, the WE Charity grant could benefit Trudeau and his relatives’ interests. In addition, the Ethics Commissioner ignored evidence that Trudeau and his spouse are friends of the Kielburger brothers who head up WE. Craig Keilburger described Trudeau as a friend in a <\/span>November 2015 interview<\/a> with the <\/span>Ottawa Citizen<\/em>, and at the same time <\/span>at the WE event where he gave his first speech as Prime Minister<\/a>, Trudeau describe both Craig and his brother Marc as friends. Given this, and that the ties between the families have only increased since then, again including that Trudeau’s spouse is a WE Ambassador, the Ethics Commissioner was wrong to conclude that that they are not friends (paragraphs 239-241 of his ruling).<\/span><\/p>\n\n

Fourthly, Commissioner Dion\u2019s ruling ignores the real meaning of the second part of section 4 of the Act<\/em> that prohibits taking part in a decision if it offers an opportunity to \u201cimproperly further\u201d another person\u2019s or entity\u2019s interests. That is a very broad prohibition, as the Commissioner himself concluded in the Trudeau II Report<\/em><\/a> on the SNC-Lavalin scandal (paragraphs 286 and 296-301). According to the Commissioner, \u201cimproper\u201d includes a violation of any of the PM\u2019s Code<\/a> rules, and that Code\u2019s Annex B<\/a> rule prohibits the PM and ministers from being in an appearance of conflict of interest.<\/p>\n\n

Trudeau has said he should have recused himself<\/a>, and Ethics Commissioner Dion says at the end of his ruling that \u201cit is always advisable to recuse oneself and inform the Commissioner promptly when facing an apparent conflict of interest\u201d<\/i> (paragraph 269). Why? Because it is clearly improper to take part in a decision when in an apparent conflict.<\/p>\n\n

\u201cCommissioner Dion contradicts himself, ties himself into knots, and cuts the federal ethics law into pieces in his ruling letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he clearly violated the law,\u201d<\/em> said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.<\/p>\n\n

Just like Commissioner Dion\u2019s ruling on the SNC-Lavalin scandal situation, which Democracy Watch is challenging in court<\/a> because he let off former Finance Minister Bill Morneau and several other PMO and Cabinet officials who violated the CofI Act<\/i> in the same way Trudeau did, he has again failed to interpret and apply the law to prevent conflicts of interest and hold everyone accountable for violations.<\/p>\n\n

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has rolled over like a lapdog and again failed to properly enforce the federal law that prohibits conflicts of interest by letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he took part in the WE Charity grant approval process when he had a conflict of interest,”<\/em> said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch will challenge the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling in court because it sets a very bad precedent that will allow politicians and government officials to take part in future decisions to hand out money to individuals and organizations that have close relations with their families.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n

Democracy Watch\u2019s court case will also challenge Commissioner Dion\u2019s ruling because he was biased as he was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process<\/a>, and he had a record of 8 unethical and questionable actions<\/a> when he was Integrity Commissioner, and his senior lawyer is a Trudeau Cabinet minister\u2019s sister-in-law<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

– 30 –<\/p>\n

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:<\/strong>
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca<\/a><\/p>\n

Democracy Watch\u2019s and Government Ethics Campaign<\/a> and Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that Commissioner found Trudeau had FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Friday, May 14, 2021 OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it will challenge Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12986","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12986"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12986\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18423,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12986\/revisions\/18423"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/democracywatch.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}