Here’s the thing that no one emphasizes when you enter politics — an adherence to rules will not be enough to steer you clear of moral minefields. Political parties are skilled when encouraging individuals to take the political plunge, but no one quite explains what happens when you find yourself drowning in deep ethical waters.

As the Trudeau government approaches its first anniversary in office, there is much to praise. New legislation has been introduced on the issue of medically assisted death. The census has been reinstated. Thousands of Syrian refugees have been settled in Canada. Consultations have been launched on a number of issues, including electoral reform. Gender equity, feminism and diversity have evolved into passwords of hope, rather than passwords of confrontation. Independent Senators have been appointed. The visa situation with Mexico has been resolved as has the canola dispute with China. Re-engagement with the UN is full on. State visits, whether in Canada or abroad, have been handled with first-class organization.

However, with tough decisions imminent, this government needs a clear focus and strong discipline. A nasty debate is brewing as advocates of regionalism and proponents of diversity argue about qualifications for a new Supreme Court appointment. A cabinet decision, or House of Commons debate, must be made about the deployment of 600 Canadian peacekeepers.

In spite of this week’s announcement regarding the approval for a BC LNG pipeline (albeit with 190 conditions), more pipeline politics lie ahead. Also waiting in the queue are federal provincial talks on both carbon emissions and health matters.

No, this is definitely not a time for the government to be distracted. So it was a shock when a very unexpected ethical situation became a recent source of public discourse and controversy.

A year ago, policy issues were envisioned and anticipated. Transition teams worked hard to organize and plan. But plans can come unstuck.

No one could have foreseen the recent public apology by two of the most senior exempt staff of Prime Minister Trudeau’s office, with an offer to repay portions of relocation expenses incurred when moving from Toronto to Ottawa. This revelation was quickly followed by the announcement that two other ministerial chiefs of staff, would make the same type of repayment. (Exempt staff are not public servants. They are instead, deemed to be “public office holders.”)

These declarations were met with disappointment and anger. Even though there was a cap on expenses, even though a third party was involved to brief the individuals and even though the process had been used by the previous government, a discretionary aspect of the expense claim, which entitled personalized cash payouts and incidentals, was seen to be excessive. In addition, because house prices vary in different markets, the payment of land transfer taxes, real estate commissions and legal fees were called into question. All the expenses became public as a result of a question tabled in the House of Commons.

When ethical behaviour and politics collide, it is not a pretty scene. The intersection is littered with headlines, partisan bickering, damaged reputations, confusion about rules, public outcry, furious editorials and questions about what a Prime Minister knew and approved. Canadians have seen this movie before and are understandably cynical about government expense uproars.

In fact, to counter that cynicism, Trudeau’s own 2015 Open and Accountable Government Document clearly states that “public office holders shall … uphold the highest ethical standards” and “will arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting with the laws.” Finally, all “decisions shall be made in the pubic interest.”

Rules cannot be made for every situation, which is why discretion is often part of the mix. Discretion allows for choice, choice which must carefully be considered using one’s own moral compass. When making that choice, any ethics 101 class encourages students to take the famous “sniff test” — ask whether you, yourself, can live with the decision; ask what family and friends would think; and tellingly, ask how your decision would look if headlined in the media.

In this case, an apology has been made. Monies are being repaid. Lessons have been learned. But these lessons must not be forgotten in the busy times ahead. Ethical decision making should be reviewed regularly. Don’t be afraid to bring your moral compass to work.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Better is always possible.