Can you imagine if a former Liberal government Cabinet Minister had committed such an act of treason!! Imagine the outrage that would have spewed forth from the Fox network loving members of this board. PCs have no ethics. They will commit treason for a few coins in their pocket. And, of course, John Baird was an adviser to Doug Ford (on his transition team). No surprise there - he was schooling Ford on how to rip-off Ontario tax-payers to the max for his own personal gain. Obviously Baird is quite the expert at this.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...ethics-of-john-bairds-saudi-intervention.html
Where to begin with former minister John Baird’s stunning appearance on Saudi state TV?
The idea that a former foreign affairs minister could openly attack Canada’s human rights efforts in Saudi Arabia was shocking enough. The fact he further called on Prime Minister Trudeau to fly immediately to Riyadh to apologize to Saudi leadership seemed even worse.
But it was his appearance on the regime’s state network that made him seem like a willing propagandist. It was offensive to people from across the Canadian political spectrum.
Can you imagine any former foreign affairs minister — Joe Clark, Lloyd Axworthy, Flora MacDonald — acting in such a manner? But then, none of these former national representatives were paid advisers to Barrick Gold Corp., a mining giant with an ongoing venture in Saudi Arabia. In terms of ethical lapses, the Baird incident sets a new low.
In 2015, John Baird jumped from the top job at Foreign Affairs to Barrick’s boardroom. This move raised alarm bells. Few government positions come with as much domestic and international cachet as “former foreign affairs minister.”
Concerns were raised that Baird could use his enormous political connections to further the corporate interests of Barrick. After all, this is a corporation that is no stranger to international controversy.
In 2013, Barrick triggered an ethics investigation when it called on Nigel Wright, a close friend of the late mining baron Peter Munk, during a dispute affecting interests in Argentina.
The ethics commissioner cleared Wright of inappropriate dealings in setting up meetings for Barrick. The commissioner also cleared Baird’s path to go work for Barrick, even though he had been lobbied a number of times by the company prior to his hiring.
Could the ethics commissioner get involved in this case? It remains to be seen. The Conflict of Interest Act was enacted to prevent former public office holders from using their position to try and influence government for private gain. Nobody would have imagined a former minister using his position to undermine the government.
Legislators can be excused for not writing into the act something that covers Baird’s action. After all, we just assume that a former Minister of the Crown would put the interests of their nation ahead of a paycheque. However, the Conflict of Interest Act does provide two possible avenues for action:
33 No former public office holder shall act in such a manner as to take improper advantage of his or her previous public office.
34 (1) No former public office holder shall act for or on behalf of any person or organization in connection with any specific proceeding, transaction, negotiation or case to which the Crown is a party and with respect to which the former public office holder had acted for, or provided advice to, the Crown.
As minister, Baird was involved in the Raif Badawi human rights dispute that is at the heart of the Saudi hissy fit.
So is this appearance on Saudi TV worth an investigation by the ethics commissioner? Perhaps.
At issue is the fact John Baird’s comments were cloaked in the gravitas of his former office. Nearly all the coverage treated him as an expert on international diplomacy, rather than as a paid adviser to Barrick.
Imagine if Baird had begun his statement with a disclaimer: “I am speaking as a paid representative of Barrick, who has a huge joint venture with a Saudi state mining company.”
What would the response of Canadians have been in that case? Most, I assume would have rolled their eyes and written his comments off as naked self interest.
To prevent further Bairdisms in the future, the ethics commissioner could insist on the need for former ministers to state their pecuniary interest if they are stepping forward on issues pertaining to their former portfolio.
That might cause even someone as shameless as John Baird to think twice before going to bat to appease such a deplorable regime with such a horrific human rights record.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...ethics-of-john-bairds-saudi-intervention.html
Where to begin with former minister John Baird’s stunning appearance on Saudi state TV?
The idea that a former foreign affairs minister could openly attack Canada’s human rights efforts in Saudi Arabia was shocking enough. The fact he further called on Prime Minister Trudeau to fly immediately to Riyadh to apologize to Saudi leadership seemed even worse.
But it was his appearance on the regime’s state network that made him seem like a willing propagandist. It was offensive to people from across the Canadian political spectrum.
Can you imagine any former foreign affairs minister — Joe Clark, Lloyd Axworthy, Flora MacDonald — acting in such a manner? But then, none of these former national representatives were paid advisers to Barrick Gold Corp., a mining giant with an ongoing venture in Saudi Arabia. In terms of ethical lapses, the Baird incident sets a new low.
In 2015, John Baird jumped from the top job at Foreign Affairs to Barrick’s boardroom. This move raised alarm bells. Few government positions come with as much domestic and international cachet as “former foreign affairs minister.”
Concerns were raised that Baird could use his enormous political connections to further the corporate interests of Barrick. After all, this is a corporation that is no stranger to international controversy.
In 2013, Barrick triggered an ethics investigation when it called on Nigel Wright, a close friend of the late mining baron Peter Munk, during a dispute affecting interests in Argentina.
The ethics commissioner cleared Wright of inappropriate dealings in setting up meetings for Barrick. The commissioner also cleared Baird’s path to go work for Barrick, even though he had been lobbied a number of times by the company prior to his hiring.
Could the ethics commissioner get involved in this case? It remains to be seen. The Conflict of Interest Act was enacted to prevent former public office holders from using their position to try and influence government for private gain. Nobody would have imagined a former minister using his position to undermine the government.
Legislators can be excused for not writing into the act something that covers Baird’s action. After all, we just assume that a former Minister of the Crown would put the interests of their nation ahead of a paycheque. However, the Conflict of Interest Act does provide two possible avenues for action:
33 No former public office holder shall act in such a manner as to take improper advantage of his or her previous public office.
34 (1) No former public office holder shall act for or on behalf of any person or organization in connection with any specific proceeding, transaction, negotiation or case to which the Crown is a party and with respect to which the former public office holder had acted for, or provided advice to, the Crown.
As minister, Baird was involved in the Raif Badawi human rights dispute that is at the heart of the Saudi hissy fit.
So is this appearance on Saudi TV worth an investigation by the ethics commissioner? Perhaps.
At issue is the fact John Baird’s comments were cloaked in the gravitas of his former office. Nearly all the coverage treated him as an expert on international diplomacy, rather than as a paid adviser to Barrick.
Imagine if Baird had begun his statement with a disclaimer: “I am speaking as a paid representative of Barrick, who has a huge joint venture with a Saudi state mining company.”
What would the response of Canadians have been in that case? Most, I assume would have rolled their eyes and written his comments off as naked self interest.
To prevent further Bairdisms in the future, the ethics commissioner could insist on the need for former ministers to state their pecuniary interest if they are stepping forward on issues pertaining to their former portfolio.
That might cause even someone as shameless as John Baird to think twice before going to bat to appease such a deplorable regime with such a horrific human rights record.
