Quote:
Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund
Know socially, vs lifelong family friends and a member of a organization heavily implicated in issues hes supposed to be investigating.
What would the threshold be for you to acknowledge a ethical violation? Employed by Trudeau ( basically has already agreed to this with his comments post vote in parliament.) Part of the scandal itself? actions under taken by Johnson are starting to bring this into question.
|
I go by
Quote:
For the purposes of the Act, however, the Commissioner considers that there should be “a close bond, a feeling of affection or a special kinship" between both the public office holder and this person. If the relationship is close enough to reasonably call into question the judgment of a public office holder's decision making, then it is friendship.
Several indicators may assist in determining whether an individual is a friend for the purposes of the Act. These indicators include:
1. the duration of the relationship and the context in which it developed;
2. the frequency of interactions;
3. the exchange of personal communications;
4. the sharing of meals or gifts in a personal setting;
5. the mutual display of trust, respect, affection, or admiration;
6. the perception of the relationship by others within the same social or professional circles.
|
So from what I can tell, he was a friend of PET and they went skiing as families but it doesn't look like it would be anything considered "friendship to Justin" by the Ethics commissioner. So no, I don't think there is an actual conflict of interest here. Johnston was a board member of the foundation, but he joined well after the incident in question so I don't see any conflict there either.
I will condition that with, I think he is a poor choice because of the appearance of a conflict. I have no reason to doubt his report and think there is far too much of a push to impugn his integrity, but I agree that he should step aside for someone who at least has the appearance of impartiality.