Allegations against Wharton need investigation

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 04/01/2024 (661 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

There is a long-standing convention in Canada’s parliamentary system of government that cabinet ministers refrain from making significant policy decisions during and immediately after general elections.

It is known as the “caretaker convention” and is designed to ensure the democratic will of the people is respected.

Former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Jeff Wharton has been accused of trying to violate that convention after his government was defeated in the Oct. 3 provincial election. Two former fellow cabinet ministers — Rochelle Squires and Kevin Klein — say Wharton tried to pressure them to approve a controversial sand mine project in southeastern Manitoba days after the Tories lost the election.

As its name implies, cabinet ministers become “caretakers” during elections. Officially, they remain in their positions to ensure elected officials have ultimate authority over the operation of government. However, they are expected to demonstrate restraint during those periods while the public decides who should form the next government. Once Parliament or a provincial legislature is dissolved and an election is called, cabinet ministers lose the moral authority to govern, at least temporarily.

There are exceptions to that rule. Ministers may exercise executive powers if it is in the public interest to do so, such as during emergencies. They may also approve routine matters or sign off on policy that was previously decided. What they cannot do, or should not do, is approve new initiatives or make significant policy decisions.

That applies to election periods and the weeks that follow, until a new government is sworn into office. If a government is re-elected, cabinet ministers may resume some of their duties immediately following an election.

That was not the case for Wharton, who was economic development minister prior to and during the election period. The MLA for Red River North was re-elected in his constituency but his government was defeated. Under the caretaker convention, that means Wharton had an obligation to refrain from making, or attempting to make, any significant policy decisions following the election.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

The Wrap

Weekday Evenings

Today’s must-read stories and a roundup of the day’s headlines, delivered every evening.

Sign up for The Wrap

Sign Up

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

The Sio Silica proposal to drill hundreds of silica sand extraction wells near the town of Vivian, Man., was under consideration by the previous PC government. Former environment minister Kevin Klein said he did not approve the project prior to the election because more information was needed on the environmental risks the drilling would pose.

Both Klein and Squires, who was acting environment minister, said Wharton telephoned them on Oct. 12 — nine days after the Oct. 3 election — to request they approve the Sio Silica project. Both refused.

Speaking publicly on the matter for the first time Tuesday, Wharton did not deny he attempted to pressure his former cabinet colleagues. Rather, he said any discussions around it were subject to cabinet confidentiality — an absurd claim since the alleged arm twisting did not occur during cabinet deliberations.

It seems unlikely two former cabinet ministers would fabricate a story about Wharton attempting to pressure them to approve a mining project. Since Wharton does not deny the allegations, it appears likely he attempted to breach the caretaker convention by trying to push through a major mining project without the moral authority to do so. That is a serious ethical breach which calls for a formal investigation, either by Manitoba’s ethics commissioner or by some other independent body.

Democracy and the rules that protect it from abuse and manipulation are fragile. They require constant attention and care to ensure they are not slowly overtaken by autocratic, self-serving and unaccountable decision making in government. This case deserves the full attention of the public and those charged with preserving the rules and procedures that underpin our democratic institutions.