Not breaking law is not enough

Let's stop speaking in code. Let's not play the same coy games as the Prime Minister’s men. Let's call things by their proper names. What the Grewal tapes reveal, in plain language, are two senior officials in the Liberal government attempting to buy the votes of two opposition Members of Parliament. No other reasonable interpretation of the tapes is possible, as many impartial observers have concluded. Whether or not the prime minister's chief of staff and his minister of health went so far as to break the law is a matter for the police, the prosecutors and the courts to decide. But we have a right to expect more of people in public life than that they should not actually commit any crimes. And while it is not clear from the tapes whether they stopped just short of the line or stepped over it -- hence the demands on all sides for a police investigation -- it is abundantly clear (assuming the tapes have been accurately transcribed) that they were flouting the intent of the law. They were promising “rewards” -- Cabinet appointments, diplomatic postings, Senate seats, all were discussed -- to the Grewals if they abstained from voting against the government in the confidence vote. True, the promise did not come with an iron-clad guarantee. They did not offer the “certainty” Mr. Grewal (whose own motives in all this have yet to be pinned down, and whose judgment, assuming it was the one-man sting operation he claims, may still be questioned) was seeking. They did not make “explicit” commitments. But it is also clear, from their own mouths, why they did not do so: not because it would be wrong in principle, and not because they did not intend there should be a quid pro quo of some sort, but to preserve, as the minister of health is heard to say at one point, “a certain degree of deniability”-- that is, to allow everyone involved, including the Prime Minister, to deny that any “offers” had been made, or that any “deals” had been struck, without actually lying. And yet deceit is plainly what they had in mind. It breathes through every line of the transcript. The “honesty” on which they congratulate themselves is the duplicity that hides within the literal truth, that thrives on ambiguity, that misleads without misstating, that depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. However evasive their choice of words, the import of their conversations was that Mr. and Mrs. Grewal should “trust” that they would be recompensed for their vote, after a decent interval. As the health minister puts it, “if the chief of staff says that certain conduct ought to be rewarded in due time that trust is kept 99.9% of the time.” It was not, then, cash on the barrel. It was a promissory note, backed by the full faith and credit of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff -- and by extension, the Prime Minister himself. Whether this meets the legal definition of trafficking in offices as set out in the Criminal Code is, in a sense, beside the point. It would certainly raise the stakes, and the consequences for those involved, if it were found to be a crime. But the matter would be serious enough even if they were “merely” in breach of the relevant ethical regulations. The Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders imposes upon both cabinet ministers and ministerial staff the obligation, inter alia, "to uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced," and "to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny." The upshot is that it is not enough for Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Murphy to say that they observed the strict letter of the law. Ethically, they are forbidden, not only from making explicit promises of public offices in exchange for an MP’s vote, but from any tacit understanding to that effect; they are required, not only to refrain from deliberately creating such an impression, but to take care that they do not do so inadvertently. That is why the general rule in more enlightened jurisdictions requires the office-holder to immediately end any discussion that so much as comes near the subject. Or forget the ethics codes. Are we permitted to say that what they were doing was just plain wrong? By whatever standard, they have failed in their duties. Their final responsibility, accordingly, is to submit their resignations, at least pending the resolution of opposition complaints to the ethics commissioner and the RCMP. If they will not do so of their own accord, it is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to demand it of them. And if he will not do so, or give a fuller explanation of his own involvement in this squalid affair, then it is his resignation that should be demanded next.