Real question is why Stefanson and ministers put reputations on line for Sio Silica

Opinion

As remarkable as ethics commissioner Jeffrey Schnoor’s report into the Sio Silica scandal is — and remarkable is a good word for it — it was unable to answer a fundamental question.

Why would a former premier and two senior former cabinet ministers put their personal and professional reputations at risk to issue a licence for a questionable silica mining proposal in the days after they were defeated in the 2023 election?

The fact that Schnoor could not fully explain ‘why’ is not a criticism of his report.

History shows that politicians caught engaging in ethical transgressions rarely face anything stiffer than a good tongue-lashing. In finding former premier Heather Stefanson, former deputy premier Cliff Cullen and former economic development minister Jeff Wharton guilty of breaching ethics law — and recommending fines for each politician — Schnoor has flipped that script in dramatic fashion.

In the days following the October 2023 election, Schnoor found that Stefanson, Cullen and Wharton went to extraordinary lengths to issue an environmental licence to Sio Silica, an Alberta-based company that wanted to mine silica sand in Vivian, just east of Winnipeg. The project involved unproven technology, and had triggered significant concern among environmental lobbies and area residents.

These efforts took place during the so-called “caretaker” period, in which an outgoing government is prohibited from making any government decision before a new government takes over. Schnoor was resolute that Stefanson, Cullen and Wharton made a variety of attempts to ram through a licence during the caretaker period.

The report detailed how, working together and apart, the Tory trio tried to bully two other cabinet ministers into issuing a licence. They also tried to influence bureaucrats into licensing the mine without a ministerial directive.

All of these efforts were unsuccessful as a licence was not issued and the new government headed by Premier Wab Kinew quickly declared that he would say “no to Sio.”

Stefanson argued in her submissions to Schnoor that because no licence was issued during the caretaker period, there was no breach of ethics law. Schnoor’s report says the breach was committed in the effort to issue a licence in the days following the election loss.

“The caretaker convention stands at the very core of our democracy,” Schnoor wrote in a release accompanying his report.

“The legitimacy of a government depends on the support of the electorate, expressed in elections. A government that loses an election has lost the confidence of the people and has lost the legitimacy to do anything beyond maintaining the status quo until the new government can take office. The exercise of power by an outgoing government to make significant decisions except in the most exceptional circumstances is a serious affront to our democratic institutions and to voters.”

The price for this affront to democracy may seem, at first blush, to be insignificant. The ethics commissioner recommended Stefanson be fined $18,000 for her role. Cullen faces a $12,000 fine and Wharton, the only one of the three who still has a seat in the Manitoba legislature, faces at $10,000 fine.

Stefanson was fined the most because she was the head of the PC government at the time and thus, “has a higher leadership responsibility that she failed to meet,” Schnoor wrote.

Wharton, on the other hand, got the smallest fine in part because he was the only one of the Tory trio who offered to apologize for his role in this scandal.

All of which brings us back to the pressing question of ‘why’ these three veteran politicians would engage in such clearly unethical behaviour.

Schnoor made it clear he did not find evidence that any of the three Tories acted for personal benefit. If there was no effort to line their own pockets, then what?

One might imagine that this was just a simple matter of them trying to help political friends in the private sector. When you dig into Sio Silica’s network, you quickly find it has a strong Tory flavour.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

The Tory trio said they continued to pursue a licence because they believed the project had enormous economic value and that it could become a major part of the PC party’s economic legacy from the seven years it was in government.

Not one of those explanations comes even remotely close to addressing why they did what they did. Unfortunately, now that Schnoor’s work is done, it appears we may never know the real motivations at work.

The bigger concern for the current iteration of the PC party is that this scandal may evolve into a millstone with some staying power.

Consider that the fines recommended by Schnoor have to be confirmed by a vote in the legislature. That means new Tory Leader Obby Khan and his 19 MLAs will have to vote for the fines — and thereby acknowledge that what the trio did was wrong — or vote against and suffer endless taunts by the Kinew government.

It appears one way or the other, Sio Silica will be a political gift for the NDP that will keep on giving for years to come.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Ethics report

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.