Inquiry must be called to get answers on sand mine scandal
It's pretty clear by now that an inquiry should be called into the Sio Silica scandal.
Ethics Commissioner Jeffrey Schnoor released his long-awaited report into the matter this week. He found that former premier Heather Stefanson, then deputy premier Cliff Cullen and then economic development minister Jeff Wharton, violated the province's Conflict of Interest Act by attempting to approve a licence for a controversial silica sand mining project after their government was defeated in the Oct. 3, 2023 provincial election.
All three ministers pushed to have a Class 2 licence under the Environment Act approved for Sio Silica, days before the new NDP government was sworn into office.
MIKE DEAL / FREE PRESS FILES
Ethics Commissioner Jeffrey Schnoor found that former premier Heather Stefanson, then deputy premier Cliff Cullen and then economic development minister Jeff Wharton, violated the province's Conflict of Interest Act.
They did so even though they knew, or ought to have known, that it violated the 'caretaker convention,' a longstanding constitutional principle in Canada that prohibits governments from making major policy decisions once a general election is called (unless it's related to an urgent matter of public importance).
'The efforts to have the project licence approved by Ms. Stefanson, Mr. Cullen and Mr. Wharton were taken despite their knowledge that voters had rejected the former government and had placed their trust in a new government,' Schnoor wrote in his report. 'All three knew the requirements of the caretaker convention and both Mr. Cullen and Mr. Wharton had been given specific warnings that approving the project licence during the transition period would breach the convention.'
They never did get the project approved. But they tried every which way to manipulate the system to get the job done.
That included attempting to invoke a never-before-used section of the Environment Act, which allows the environment minister to approve a Class 2 licence, something normally handled by a senior public servant, in this case the director of the Environmental Approvals Branch.
Then-environment minister Kevin Klein and acting minister at the time Rochelle Squires were asked by Wharton following the election to approve the licence. Both refused.
'The exercise of power in a matter of great controversy and with long-term implications, even if well motivated, was improper within the meaning of the act and calls for significant denunciation,' wrote Schnoor.
There are good reasons why cabinet ministers should not make major policy decisions during elections, especially after they are defeated at the polls. They no longer have the mandate of the people to act. Attempting to do so is an affront to democracy.
Schnoor recommended all three minsters should be fined (something the legislative assembly must vote on). Wharton has apologized for his actions (he initially denied any wrongdoing) and he was stripped of his critic role by Progressive Conservative Leader Obby Khan. But he's still in caucus.
Stefanson, though, has been defiant. She claims she did nothing wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's further evidence that she was never fit to be premier.
'None of the decisions I took in the period before the new NDP government was sworn in were made for any purpose other than to further and protect the public interest.' Stefanson said in a written statement from her lawyer.
Her statement makes no sense. She was prohibited from making major policy decisions once an election was called, whether she believed it was in the public interest or not. She subverted democracy and is refusing to take responsibility for her role in this scandal.
This matter should not end here. Manitobans deserve to know what motivated Stefanson, Cullen and Wharton to try to push this licence through.
Schnoor said he found no evidence the ministers in question would have benefited personally from the project. But he had limited ability to delve further into what the motivating factors were.
That is why a commission of inquiry under the Evidence Act should be called. An inquiry, headed by an independent commissioner, would have broad investigative powers, including the ability to gather necessary evidence and compel witness testimony in public hearings.
Who stood to benefit from this project? Why was there such an urgent push to have it approved after the Tories lost the election?
Wednesdays
A weekly look towards a post-pandemic future.
Manitobans deserve answers to those questions. And those involved should be held accountable for their actions.
More importantly, an inquiry is necessary to explore options to try to prevent this from happening in the future.
This isn't just about a few cabinet ministers trying to do an end-run around the law. It's about preserving and protecting our democratic institutions.
Premier Wab Kinew should call an inquiry to get to the bottom of this mess.
tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca
Tom BrodbeckColumnist
Tom Brodbeck is a columnist with the Free Press and has over 30 years experience in print media. He joined the Free Press in 2019. Born and raised in Montreal, Tom graduated from the University of Manitoba in 1993 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics and commerce. Read more about Tom.
Tom provides commentary and analysis on political and related issues at the municipal, provincial and federal level. His columns are built on research and coverage of local events. The Free Press's editing team reviews Tom's columns before they are posted online or published in print – part of the Free Press's tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.
Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber.
Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
10 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Alberta government again shifting expense disclosure policy after widespread backlash
EDMONTON – Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's government is again shifting its expense disclosure policy after critics from across the political spectrum accused her of dodging responsibility. In early August, the province quietly published new rules axing a requirement for Smith, her ministers, senior staff and deputy ministers to publicly post receipts for expenses over $100. Marisa Breeze, press secretary to Finance Minister Nate Horner, said in a Tuesday email that cabinet has directed Horner to see that the previous expense posting policy is reinstated — but with a tweak. 'Cabinet recognized the importance of an expense posting policy that achieves both security and transparency,' she said. Breeze said the exact location of accommodations like hotels will be redacted on receipts posted online to ensure the security of elected members and staff. It comes after the premier, facing heated questions at an Edmonton town hall last week, said the change caught her off guard – but was made for safety reasons. 'There are a number of my ministers who go to the same hotels when they're frequenting different municipalities, and they just wanted the name of the hotel redacted, just in case people were tracking them down,' Smith said. 'That was what the policy was supposed to be. It turned out to be something quite different.' The move to stop posting expensive receipts sparked wide criticism. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said it was baffling and a bad look for Smith's government. 'This makes it look like the Alberta government has some expenses to hide from taxpayers, the people who are paying the bills,' the federation's Alberta director, Kris Sims, said in a statement last week. She wasn't alone in calling for a reversal. The Opposition NDP called the change 'shameful' and accused it of being a clear attempt by the United Conservative government to hide spending. 'It's entitled, and it's the exact opposite of being open and transparent,' NDP house leader Christina Gray said in a statement last week. 'Our province deserves nothing less than an ethical, transparent and competent government. Right now, Albertans are getting the complete opposite.' The province's information and privacy commissioner, Diane McLeod, also has been critical of the move, telling media that the change diminished transparency. Smith's former infrastructure minister, Peter Guthrie, who was booted from the UCP caucus earlier this year, said on social media last week the government was 'shielding their irresponsible use of Albertans' tax dollars from scrutiny.' Guthrie also said Smith was being evasive with her explanation. 'Smith dodged responsibility, blaming cabinet — claiming it was MLAs who wanted to conceal receipts 'for safety reasons,'' he wrote. 'As a former cabinet member, I know this: under the Smith-Anderson duo-cracy, nothing moves without their permission,' he said, referring to Smith's chief of staff, Rob Anderson. 'This premier grabs credit when things go right and skirts blame when they don't,' Guthrie added. Gray said if Smith is going to reverse the policy change, she should also republish the eight years of past expense reports the government recently took off its website, as first reported by the CBC. That demand was echoed by Sims on social media as reports of the government's move trickled out without a formal announcement late Tuesday afternoon. 'It has to be fully reversed,' Sims wrote. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 19, 2025.
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Social housing improvements a must
Opinion The NDP government's pledge to end chronic homelessness by 2031 is both ambitious and overdue. For a province where more than a thousand people sleep in shelters or on the streets on any given night, it is a commitment that should be applauded. But it is also a promise that cannot be realized without a comprehensive plan, one that takes aim at the multiple factors keeping people unhoused. That includes revising rent control rules, building more social housing units, and reforming the province's Rent Assist program, something the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives took aim at last week. Manitoba has long had rent-control rules, but tenants know all too well how easily those rules can be undermined. Each year, landlords can apply for exemptions to raise rents above the guideline, and those requests are routinely granted. For someone living on a low or fixed income, an unexpected increase of even $50 or $100 a month can push them out of their home. MIKAELA MACKENZIE / FREE PRESS Files Without social housing, the cycle of shelter use, encampments and homelessness only deepens. If the government is serious about preventing homelessness, it must strengthen protections for tenants. That does not mean ignoring the genuine costs landlords face in maintaining buildings. But it does mean closing loopholes that allow excessive rent hikes under the guise of routine upgrades. Affordable housing begins with stable rents. Without that, more Manitobans will continue to find themselves at risk. Another pillar of the solution is social housing, an area where Manitoba has fallen badly behind. The former Progressive Conservative government sold off public housing units, shrinking the supply at a time of rising demand. Those decisions are still being felt today. Social housing is not a luxury. It is a lifeline for people who cannot compete in the private rental market, whether because of low incomes, health issues, or systemic barriers. Without it, the cycle of shelter use, encampments, and homelessness only deepens. The NDP government must make rebuilding Manitoba's social housing stock a top priority. That means replacing what was lost under the PCs and building new units in the years ahead. It will take significant public investment, but the alternative — continuing to warehouse people in shelters or leave them in tents along riverbanks — is neither humane nor fiscally responsible. Equally important is reforming the Rent Assist program, which is supposed to help low-income Manitobans cover the cost of housing. In its current form, the program is fundamentally unfair. Thanks to changes introduced by the previous PC government, renters who receive Employment and Income Assistance get less support than other low-income renters. This two-tiered system penalizes those already living in the deepest poverty. Wednesdays A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom. In a report released last week, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called for changes to the program, including ensuring that all low-income renters – whether on social assistance or not – are treated equally, so they have a better chance of remaining in their homes. Some may balk at the price tag attached to new housing, enhanced rent supports, and stronger tenant protections. But the costs of doing nothing are already staggering. Homelessness fuels pressure on the health-care system, emergency shelters, and police services. More importantly, it exacts an incalculable human toll on those forced to live without the security and dignity of a home. The government's 2031 goal sets a high bar. Meeting it will take more than political will, it will take concrete reforms and a willingness to make difficult choices. Tightening rent control rules, rebuilding social housing, and repairing Rent Assist are not optional pieces of the puzzle. They are essential. The alternative is to watch the cycle of homelessness deepen, with more Manitobans left behind. That is not acceptable. Manitoba can, and must, do better.
2 days ago
Who controls the food supply? Proposed changes to seed reuse reopens debate
It's a small change that risks cultivating a big debate. On one side is the principle of farmer's privilege — the traditional right of Canadian farmers to save seeds at the end of a growing season and reuse them the next year. On the other is the principle of plant breeders' rights — the right of those who develop new seeds and plants to protect and profit from their discoveries. The issue has been dormant for a decade. Now, proposed changes to government rules regarding plant breeders' rights are reviving that debate. It also raises questions about how Canada gets its food and who controls what is grown. Ultimately, it's about food security, said Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The group supports the changes, which include narrowing the scope of farmer's privilege. Not only keeping us competitive to keep food costs down, but also to make sure that we maintain new varieties coming forward for that food availability. Enlarge image (new window) The proposed changes could reduce the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds for crops like fruits and vegetables. Photo: The Canadian Press / Giordano Ciampini In a notice (new window) dated Aug. 9, the government announced proposed changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations — a form of intellectual property protection for plants, similar to a patent. The regulations give plant breeders a monopoly over the distribution of their product for a set period, as a way to to encourage investment and innovations such as varieties with higher yields or more resistant to drought or pests. It's a big business. Estimates of the economic impact of the seed industry in Canada range from $4 billion to $6 billion a year. The right to reuse The changes would remove the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds and cuttings from protected fruits, vegetables, ornamental varieties, other plants reproduced through vegetative propagation and hybrids. For most plants recognized under the law, the protections last for 20 years. Personal gardens and many other kinds of crops such as wheat, cereals and pulses, where seed saving is more widespread, would not be affected. Among the other proposed changes is to extend the protection for new varieties of mushrooms, asparagus and woody plants like raspberries and blueberries to 25 years from the current 20 years. A public consultation on the changes runs until Oct. 18. Enlarge image (new window) NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns is calling for parliamentary hearings into the proposed changes. Photo: Kendal Hanson/CHEK News NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns says the changes raise an important issue for Canadians. He questions why the government is holding the consultation in summer when most farmers are focused on growing and harvesting crops — not drafting submissions for public consultations. They keep doing this over and over again, said Johns of the federal government. They announce regulatory changes that impact farmers and their livelihoods [and] they schedule the consultation period during the busiest time of the year for farmers. Johns said companies producing new kinds of seed should be adequately compensated for their innovation and intellectual property. But he said farmers who grow and harvest the food Canadians eat shouldn't be starved by big corporations choking off their seed supply. He wants the House of Commons agriculture committee to hold hearings and take a closer look at the changes being proposed. A spokesperson for Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald said the government is committed to encouraging innovation, investment, research and competitiveness in Canadian agriculture, horticulture and ornamental industries. The spokesperson said the government will review all feedback before determining next steps. Access vs. innovation Former prime minister Stephen Harper's government triggered a debate in 2015 when it adopted measures to bring Canada's rules more in line with guidelines adopted by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as UPOV 91. The rules are separate from patent law or technology use agreements which some seed companies use to prevent farmers from saving and reusing seeds. Changes to plant breeders' rules are now again on the table. Last year, a government consultation resulted in 109 submissions, the majority supportive of change. Meanwhile, lobbyists have been busy behind the scenes. According to the federal lobbying registry, 13 people from several different groups or companies are currently registered to lobby on plant breeders' rights including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and Swiss-based Syngenta, owned by Sinochem, a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Enlarge image (new window) Wheat is not included in the proposed changes, but a research director for the National Farmers Union worries they could be the start of a 'slippery slope.' Photo: Reuters / Todd Korol Cathy Holtslander, director of research and policy for the National Farmers Union, says the proposed changes risk hurting farmers while increasing profits and the power of seed-producing companies — often multinationals with foreign ownership. While the changes are focused on an area of agriculture where seed saving is less common, Holtslander warns the changes are a slippery slope that could lead to an erosion of the rights of farmers. If they were to go after wheat with the amendment, there would be a huge uproar and people would really be angry and push back, Holtslander said. She said what's being proposed paves the way for other crops to be included later. The seed industry does not want farmers' privilege to exist for any seed. They want to be able to require people to buy new seed every year, she said. Holtslander's group plans to fight the proposed changes. She said the issue goes beyond the question of individual farmers reusing seed. If the big multinational companies control the seed, they control our food supply, she said. Lauren Comin, director of policy for Seeds Canada, acknowledges the issue can be controversial but argues Canada needs strong intellectual property protection if it wants access to the newest innovations to compete on the world stage. It's incredibly important to have these frameworks to encourage investment companies, businesses, public entities, to know that they are going to somehow be compensated and protected, Comin said. She said that while the changes provide that certainty and that incentive for investment, she wants them to go further. While acknowledging there isn't enough certified seed for all of Canada's cereals and small grains crop, Comin would also like to see farmers compensate plant breeders when they reuse seeds, as they do in Europe. The farmer's privilege does not say that that use is free, she said. [Farmers] can choose to buy the latest and greatest product of innovation, which means that there is a tremendous amount of investment and effort that went toward developing this improved variety. Or they can decide that they don't value innovation, and they can go back to a variety that's unprotected and grow that. Currie, an Ontario grains and oil seed farmer who saves and reuses seeds, says Canada needs to balance the two principles. He says farmer's privilege is key to Canada's competitiveness, but so is access to new varieties of seeds and plants. While I do understand where some of the multinationals want to have better control, I believe in order for the industry to be viable, farmers have to have some control as well, he said.
