The request must be called to get answers to the sandmine scandal – Winnipeg Free Press

Opinion

It is now quite clear that an examination in the SIO -Silica scandal should be called.

Ethics Commissioner Jeffrey Schnoor published his long -awaited report on the matter this week. He found that former Prime Minister Heather Stefanson, the then deputy Prime Minister Cliff Cullen, and then the Minister of Economic Affairs Jeff Wharon violated the law of the province of the province against the approval of a license for a controversial pebble -reduction project after her government was defeated on October 3, 2023 Provincial election.

All three ministers urged that they had approved a class -2 license for SIO Silica as part of the Environmental Act, days before the new NDP government was sworn in.

They did so, although they knew or should have known that it violated the “caretaker convention”, a long -term constitutional principle in Canada that prohibits governments to make important political decisions as soon as a general choice is described (unless they refer to an urgent matter of public importance).

“Despite their knowledge, the efforts that Ms. Stefanson, Mr. Cullen and Mr. Wharton approved project license were declared that the voters had rejected the former government and set their trust in a new government,” Schnoor wrote in his report. “All three knew the requirements of the caretaker convention, and both Mr. Cullen and Mr. Wharton had received specific warnings that would violate the approval of the project license during the transition period.”

You have never approved the project. But they tried to manipulate the system to do the work.

This included the attempt to refer to a section of the environmental law that has never been used beforehand, which enables the Environment Minister to approve a license in class 2, which is normally treated by a high -ranking civil servant, in this case the director of the Department of Environmental Pastians.

The then Environment Minister Kevin Klein and the incumbent minister, when Rochelle Squires was asked by Wharton after the election for approval of the license. Both rejected.

“The exercise of power in a question of great controversy and with long -term effects was inappropriate in the sense of the law and called for a significant denunciation,” wrote Schnoor.

There are good reasons why Cabinet Minister should not make any important political decisions in the elections, especially after they have been defeated in the surveys. You no longer have the mandate of the people to act. An attempt to do this is an affront against democracy.

Schnoor recommended that all three minsters should be punished (something that the legislative assembly must coordinate). Wharton apologized for his actions (he initially denied misconduct) and was robbed of his critical role by the conservative leader Obby Khan. But he's still in the caucus.

However, Stefanson was defiant. She claims that she didn't do anything wrong, on the contrary, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is further proof that it was never suitable for being a prime minister.

“None of the decisions I made in front of the new NDP government was made for a different purpose as the further and protective interest.” Stefanson said her lawyer in a written statement.

Your statement makes no sense. It was forbidden to make important political decisions as soon as a choice was called, regardless of whether she was of the opinion that this was in the public interest or not. She infiltrated democracy and refuses to take responsibility for her role in this scandal.

This matter should not end here. Manitobans deserve what Stefanson, Cullen and Wharton motivated to push through this license.

Schnoor said he had not found any evidence that the ministers in question personally benefited from the project. However, he had a limited ability to continue to deal with the motivating factors.

Therefore, an investigation commission should be called up according to the Evidence Act. An investigation under the leadership of an independent commissioner would have extensive investigations, including the ability to collect necessary evidence and to force testimony in public hearings.

Who benefited from this project? Why was there such an urgent advance to approve it after the Tories?

Manitobans earn answers to these questions. And those involved should be held accountable for their actions.

It is even more important that an inquiry is required to examine options to prevent this from taking place in the future.

It's not just about a few cabinet ministers try to end the law. It is about preserving and protecting our democratic institutions.

Premier Wab Kinew should call an inquiry to get to the bottom of this chaos.

tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca

Tom Brodbeck
columnist

Tom Brodbeck is a columnist with the Free press And has over 30 years of experience in print media. He joined that Free press Born in 2019. Born and grew up in Montreal and studied in 1993 at the University of Manitoba with a Bachelor of Arts in economics and trade. Read more about Tom.

Tom offers comments and analyzes about political and relatives questions at local, provincial and federal level. His pillars are based on research and reporting on local events. The Free pressThe processing team evaluates Tom columns before they are published online or published in printed form – part of the Free pressTradition since 1872 to produce reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free pressThe story and the mandate and learn how our newsroom works.

Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to operate our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, you should become a subscriber.

Our newsroom depends on your audience of readers to operate our journalism. Thank you for your support.