Report leaves ‘why’ largely unanswered

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 22/05/2025 (308 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

“I have found no evidence that Ms. Stefanson would have received a financial benefit if the efforts to approve the Project license had been successful. Even so, as I have already commented, those efforts could have resulted in a decision with permanent and significant consequences. More importantly, those efforts lacked ethical and constitutional legitimacy. I found her repeated dismissal of the caretaker convention in her written representations to me — a convention that is central to respect for the wishes of voters — to be disheartening.”

— Manitoba Ethics Commissioner Jeffrey Schnoor

In a remarkable report issued Wednesday afternoon, Jeffrey Schnoor excoriated former premier Heather Stefanson for not only failing to meet the expectations of an outgoing premier during the caretaker period before the incoming NDP government was sworn in, but for also proving unrepentant regarding her actions.

Schnoor found that Stefanson, then-deputy premier Cliff Cullen and then-economic development minister Jeff Wharton tried to get approval for the Sio Silica mining project after the Progressive Conservatives lost the 2023 election, yet before the new NDP government was to be sworn in.

The allegations of impropriety first came to light following the 2023 provincial election when, as The Canadian Press reported, former Progressive Conservative cabinet ministers Rochelle Squires and Kevin Klein said they had been pressured by Wharton to get the Sio Silica mining project approved before the NDP took power.

In his 102-page report, the ethics commissioner explained in great detail the steps taken over the course of the investigation — how it began with multiple requests for an inquiry, through to his conclusions and recommendations. You can read a full story on his report and its repercussions in today’s paper.

While Schnoor’s report is certainly thorough, the question of “why” Stefanson, Cullen and Wharton thought it advisable to ignore ethical considerations and attempt to push through a controversial decision seems largely unanswered.

After all, every single one of the elected officials mentioned in the report had been properly briefed on the expectations they needed to meet under the caretaker convention.

More to the point, the investigation found that both Mr. Cullen and Mr. Wharton “had been given specific warnings” that any move to approve the project’s licence in the transition period would breach the convention.

We have to question their motives. The commissioner stated that he found no evidence that Ms. Stefanson, Mr. Cullen or Mr. Wharton or their families received a financial benefit from their conduct.

“However, the act requires that members not act in their official capacity in a way that would improperly further the private interests of another person,” the report said.

If there was no financial motivation, why pursue a reckless course of action that so seriously contravened the caretaker convention?

Adherence to the convention under our Westminster system of governance ensures that the government refrains from making significant or controversial policy decisions and appointments that could undermine the incoming government or run contrary to the will of the electorate.

Yet all three have argued that their actions did not violate the spirit of the caretaker convention, with Stefanson going so far as to assert that the convention “is not a law or regulation,” and that Schnoor had no jurisdiction to interpret the convention or apply penalties to its breach.

Ms. Stefanson would have us believe that she and members of her caucus had the best of intentions by pushing for the licence approval — the creation of new jobs and increased local revenues. Political machinations aside, that may well be true. Yet as a motivation it seems insincere, particularly as they knew their actions were ethically questionable. At its core, there is another ethical ideal that is relevant in this situation: the ends do not justify the means.

The report outlines that the former premier herself insisted that no project licence was to be issued without the consent of the NDP, in specific deference to the caretaker convention. Clearly Stefanson understood the convention applied in this case, but she’s trying to have it both ways.

That no licence was issued says more to the ethical character of Squires and Klein, who refused to approve the company’s licence, than to any minimal effort of accountability by Stefanson, Cullen or Wharton.

As a result of his investigation, Schnoor is recommending fines of $18,000 for Stefanson, $12,000 for Cullen and $10,000 for Wharton. The legislative assembly will ultimately make the final decision whether these fines are imposed or not, but the ethics commissioner has argued that this significant breach of trust calls for “significant denunciation.”

We happen to agree. A strong message needs to be sent to the next politician who shows such disgraceful contempt for our democracy.

» Matt Goerzen, editor